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

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 86
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,817member
    Dear Epic:

    The judge already told you how to avoid the harm.   It is in your power to do so.  You choose not to; you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.  

    Love 
    The world. 
    Beatsqwerty529secondkox2watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 86
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,739member
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    thttobybeagleDogpersonqwerty52uraharaosmartormenajrcornchipmdriftmeyerwatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 43 of 86
    aderutter said:
    I still hope Apple bans all in app purchases for digital goods in games.
    Let’s go back to software being valued by having a cost associated with it up-front with a minimum app cost of say $4.99 which is still dirt cheap.
    Why?
    You want to control instead to let the market decide what they want. 
    If I don’t want to but in-app - I don’t buy. 
    Why should anyone hope for this to be removed?
    llamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 86
    LOL

    So Timmy wants back on the App Store eh?

    well, you’re in luck, sween! Go back to your app, remove the offending features of said app and Apple would gladly welcome you back! Yay!

    oh wait. What’s that? You want to get back on Apples platform while still robbing them of their part of the bargain? 

    Too bad. You’ll just have to miss out on the Apple sweetness. 

    Can’t believe this idiot. Purposefully violates App Store policy and then launches an anti-Apple pr campaign when Apple does what they said they’d do. 

    OK Epuc. That was fun for -2 seconds. Time to honor your contract or shut up and go away. 
    Beatscornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 86
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,266member
    davidw said:
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  
  • Reply 46 of 86
    rcfa said:
    No disappearance of a game causes harm, if anything it’s a boon as it may bring one or the other out of a gaming addiction, and make them pick up a bock again...
    QFT. In the same spirit, ban Facebook.

    these “social” platforms are really mind control platforms.
    mwhitewatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 47 of 86

    jkichline said:
    Incalculable harm? It’s a game for crying out loud. Get a grip Epic. Maybe gamers may discover the outdoors. Our work productivity will probably increase too along with GDP from this.
    Maybe it’s incalculably small?

    People just assume incalculable means large, but there are lots of reasons it could be impossible to calculate something. Another possibility with Tim Sweeney is user error.
    cornchipwatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 48 of 86
    danvm said:
    davidw said:
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  

    You really don’t get it. Yes, you can compare, and you have to, if you want to understand the situation.
    You can’t purchase the game you want, by the retailer you want, if the retailer of your choice doesn’t not want to sell you the game you want, because the developer of the game you want, refuse to pay any commission to the retailer of your choice.
    So in this example Apple/iOS/AppStore is the retailer who doesn’t want to sell you  the game you want, because the developer of game you want, refuse to pay any commission.


    Rayz2016mwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 49 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.
    Exactly. Epic says they won't comply with Apple's rules (even temporarily, while the suit proceeds) because they're "illegal." What does that mean? Epic's suit claims that it is illegal for Apple to require its 30% App Store markup — but even Epic doesn't claim that it is illegal for a developer to consent to such a markup. Epic could prevent all this allegedly incalculable harm by simply complying (for now) with Apple's rules, and reaping that much more money from a judgment if-and-when they win their case. Instead, Epic is purposely forcing the court to choose between "incalculable harm" to Fortnite users, or allowing Epic (but not its competitors) to offer a markup-free price to its iOS users for many months or years while the case drags on. The judge made the right call the first time: Epic can play by the same rules as all other game developers, even while it sues to try to change those rules.
    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 50 of 86
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,266member
    qwerty52 said:
    danvm said:
    davidw said:
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  

    You really don’t get it. Yes, you can compare, and you have to, if you want to understand the situation.
    You can’t purchase the game you want, by the retailer you want, if the retailer of your choice doesn’t not want to sell you the game you want, because the developer of the game you want, refuse to pay any commission to the retailer of your choice.
    So in this example Apple/iOS/AppStore is the retailer who doesn’t want to sell you  the game you want, because the developer of game you want, refuse to pay any commission.


    Following your example, the developer (I suppose we are talking about Epic) tried to negotiate a deal with Apple, so I don't think they had intentions of paying nothing.  Since it didn't succeed, they had two options, accept Apple terms or take Fortnite out of the store.  If that had happened with consoles, they would had a 3rd option, distribute Fortnite on retailers.  This option doesn't exist with Apple mobile devices.  

    BTW, I don't agree with how Epic is managing the issue.  I just pointed out that consoles give customers and developers an option not available with Apple mobile devices and the App Store.  That's the reason I don't think you can compare the App Store to consoles.  
    edited September 2020
  • Reply 51 of 86

    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.


    Well, if there ever was a pot-kettle situation.

    You do own the piece of hardware, which is about as useful as a paper weight, or a door stopper, without the OS that runs it. And guess what: all comercial OS is only ever licensed to users, never sold.

    Apple maintains absolute ownership of all its OSes, as they should. We only license it, as most of us knew very well, before making the purchase. And that also comes with terms of use, that you agreed to. If you did not like the experience, return the product, and buy something else from another vendor! I hear Samsung made a phone that doubled as a barbecue starter some years ago. Maybe that’s the phone for you?

    If someone got the bucks to invest in Apple hardware, but not the wit to understand why the products are appealing, despite the premium price, well, that’s nobody else’s fault.

    If you want you iPhone to work like a white box Android, you may have taken a wrong turn a while back. And I sincerely hope you never get your wish!
    Rayz2016watto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 52 of 86
    danvm said:
    davidw said:
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  
    Oh dear...

    Let me try again.

    That’s a distinction without a difference, boy. If you ever heard of the expression. Be it a digital download, or a physical disc bought on a store, all terms and fees are the same! Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have control on what runs on their platform.

    I’ll grant you that there’s a difference though. Console vendors typically sell them at cost, or even loss (which also have antitrust implications, btw). They expect to make their money from a piece of software sales.

    Apple makes its bread from direct hardware sales. But that doesn’t force it to give freebies in the services area. That’s a market decision. And if you follow the numbers, it would seem that the market agrees with that. Apple hardware, software, and services are selling like hot cakes!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 86
    If the harm of being denied the app is incalculable, does this mean the benefits of using the app are incalculable?  It sounds like such nonsense. 
    cornchipthtllamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 86
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,921member
    williamh said:
    If the harm of being denied the app is incalculable, does this mean the benefits of using the app are incalculable?  It sounds like such nonsense. 
    👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🤣
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 86
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,266member
    danvm said:
    davidw said:
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  
    Oh dear...

    Let me try again.

    That’s a distinction without a difference, boy. If you ever heard of the expression. Be it a digital download, or a physical disc bought on a store, all terms and fees are the same! Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have control on what runs on their platform.
    My point is that there are options with consoles, since your are not forced to use the digital store.  Second, I have seen the fees for digital stores but not for retailers, a part from the study commissioned by Apple.  The issue with the study is that based, in some cases, in references from +8 years ago.  And that's a long time for the gaming industry.  Maybe things have changed, maybe not.  I think that study would be more reliable with recent information.  

    https://www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/insights/publishing/apples_app_store_and_other_digital_marketplaces_a_comparison_of_commission_rates.pdf
    I’ll grant you that there’s a difference though. Console vendors typically sell them at cost, or even loss (which also have antitrust implications, btw). They expect to make their money from a piece of software sales.

    Apple makes its bread from direct hardware sales. But that doesn’t force it to give freebies in the services area. That’s a market decision. And if you follow the numbers, it would seem that the market agrees with that. Apple hardware, software, and services are selling like hot cakes!

    Personally I don't think that's relevant.  If console vendors sell at a loss, maybe they should do something different.  As today, I don't think they even sell at loss, specially Nintendo. 
  • Reply 56 of 86
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,566administrator
    danvm said:
    davidw said:
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  
    They can. The manufacturers and distributors still have to pay Sony/Microsoft between 30 and 50 percent of the title price.
    osmartormenajrRayz2016thtqwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 86
    Personally I don't think that's relevant.  If console vendors sell at a loss, maybe they should do something different.  As today, I don't think they even sell at loss, specially Nintendo. 
    As I don’t have a console, nor the will to buy one, I must admit that I don’t follow news about them all that often. But when I do, it is commonly stated that vendors typically lose money on sales of hardware, that are recouped on licensing games sales (be it a digital download, or physical media, as Mike just pointed out).

    To sell a product below cost, just because you can afford it, is known as dumping. That’s an antitrust violation in every country that uphold such laws. I understand that in this case, it is about a different source of revenue. But the practice may be constructed, through a legal argument, to be a way o make extremely hard for new vendors to break into the market.

    So, in the case of Microsoft, who allied itself crying foul at Apple, over something they’ve also been doing since forever, and also real antitrust violations, that’s rich.
    Rayz2016mwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 58 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.
    @ITGUYINSD : Every iPhone owner is free to install other software than Apple's already today. It's called jailbreaking. So what's the problem? Because I sure hope you didn't mean that it should fall upon Apple to adjust their operating system and their services to aid people in circumventing it …right?

    #
    KickSweeney_FreeFortnite
    :* 
    edited September 2020 Rayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 86
    danvm said:
    davidw said:
    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 are truly lost. 

    Walmart has every right to not sell the TV brand that you might want to buy. If Walmart don;t want to sell Samsung TV's because Samsung is not willing to drop their wholesale price to the point where Walmart can make a certain precent profit from each retail sale, then Walmart has every right not to sell Samsung TV's in their stores. And Samsung has no right what so ever, to set up a shop inside a Walmart to sell their own TV's, to people like you that might want to own a Samsung TV. If Samsung want to sell TV's in a Walmart, they have to deal with Walmart. Walmart has full control what brand TV's are sold in their stores. They have a monopoly there. The same monopoly MS has with their X-Box, Sony has with their PlayStation and Apple has with their iDevices. No one is going to accuse Walmart of abusing the monopoly they have in what is sold in their stores, if they refuse to sell Samsung TV's or refuse to allow Samsung to set up their own shop inside a Walmart.  

    And you are completely wrong about you being able to watch anything you want with your TV, once you buy it. You can only watch what the TV allows you to watch. You can not install your own app in the Smart TV menu or anyone else's, that has not been approved by your TV maker. If your TV didn't come with the Amazon Prime app, then you can't watch what's on Amazon Prime, no matter how much you think you can watch whatever you want, because its YOUR TV. And unless the TV maker allow Amazon Prime in their TV, all your crying about how the TV has a monopoly on what apps can be installed, is not going to get you to watch anything you want. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, then you have to buy a TV with Amazon Prime app pre-installed or hope that in the future, your TV maker will update their apps to include Amazon Prime. Or you can install an external TV box and use your TV just as a monitor, to watch what your external TV box allows you to watch. 

    If you bought a PC, can you install a Mac OS X program? Why not? You bought it. It's YOUR computer and you should be able to install and run what program you want ... right? Same with buying an X-Box. Why can't you play your PlayStation disc on it? Why can't you buy games only on Nintendo, from the MS Store in your X-box? It YOUR X-Box and you should be able to play what games you want on it. See how your illogical thinking work? It doesn't.  
    I think you cannot compare gaming consoles to iOS / iPadOS devices since consoles don't force customers and developers to use the digital store.  They can go to a retailer to purchase or sell their boxed games.  iOS / iPadOS devices are forced to use the apps store, for better or worse.  
    They can do that because Sony and Xbox have licensing agreements with vendors to allow those 3rd party Game Devs to do so, if they wish. They can pull that option at any time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 86
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,016member
    tommikele said:
    No way the courts fold on this BS request. Epic created the entire mess all by itself. They chose to sue Apple because they didn't want to live up to the terms of a contract they willingly of their own free will entered into. Screw them.

    Their plan to beat Apple into submission was pathetic and poorly thought out. They should have known better. It won't work. Now they are paying the price.

    Epic's arrogance got them. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a productive strategy. Too bad Epic thought it would be.

    They made $750 million last year and were own track according to their own publicly released guidance to make $1 billion in 2020. Just look how they screwed that up, not to mention how what they have done will negatively impact all developers and especially the small ones who don't have the benefit of almost $1 billion in profits to bail out Epics stupidity.

    They put a gun barrel in their mouth and  pulled the trigger. Now they are surprised about what happened.

    Every one of the executives involved in hatching this plan should be terminated without compensation. 
    What is it that you think they are suprised about? I think they knew pretty much how the situation would playout up to this point. They knew Apple would block further distribution of Fortnite. They probably knew Apple would terminate the the developer account used to distribute Fortnite. They may or may not have thought Apple would threaten to terminate other associated developer accounts, but Apple was barred from doing that anyway. They probably also realized that getting a TRO blocking the termination of the developer account used to distribute Fortnite was a long shot. I doubt they started this process expecting they'd be able to get such a TRO.

    The question is, what happens from here? Epic might find some success through the courts or through public pressure on Apple. Or maybe it won't. But it's unlikely that anything (significant) that's happened so far has come as a surprise to Epic.
Sign In or Register to comment.