Epic seeks 'coalition' of Apple critics as fight over App Store policies intensifies

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    Epic is seeking a coalition to pay the legal bills. 
    Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 55
    normang said:

    The cart vendor has a choice, if he wants to be in the mall, he has to pay the fee that the mall requires to be there to use "their" space.   Your trying to create fairness where there is none, you can compete or you cannot.. If you decide to setup a cart in a saturated market, you had better be able to market and show that you have a far superior product, or your going to fail..    

    Epic has no valid case..  They are trying to upend the app store, and in the process even if somehow they succeeded, its unlikely that things would really improve for anyone else..   It would merely show that if you legally force your will on someone its no different than totalitarianism I assume you decry.. 
    normang, you dont understand i agree with you. in what concerns the mall there is no question whatsoever you are right.. but beyond your point, there is no choice outside the mall. you either sell in the mall or you cannot sell at all. that is illegal under classic anti-trust laws. thing is the world is very different from when they were put in place. this case will inevitably prompt a long due revision.

    if i was a seller i would even choose myself to be in the mall, as i believe it is a good deal and i do not think 30% is a high fee. but the fact that one cannot sell outside of the mall artificially is illegal regardless of our opinion.. if an app works on a device but cant because of barriers created to prevent this for comercial reasons, this barrier is illegal - it is a fundamental aspect of anti-trust laws.

    Apple says it is not for comercial reasons, that it is protecting its users - ok, it is a valid point.. but one that never arose before in anti-trust cases.. for much less Microsoft was condemned in the browser war times. totalitarism is essentially "my way or the highway", and this is what you are defending.. i could agree with you in the case of the App Store, but how can you justify this in the case of App installation on iOS? You see when "my way" is our way that all seems fine, but if this case goes through in time we might be prevented from financial survival unless we are a corporation. it is not a small thing in the long run. you might be able to bake cakes and not be able to do this because some large bakery doesnt think you bake safe, or worse, doesnt want competition.
    rain22
  • Reply 23 of 55

    PDRPRTS said:
    there is no choice outside the mall. you either sell in the mall or you cannot sell at all.

    I don’t agree with this. Apple isn’t saying that you cannot set up shop in a location that’s outside the mall, and not on mall property. There’s plenty of other malls. Android Mall is much bigger, but their customer service regularly gets lambasted for being horrible. Apple Mall is insisting that if you want to sell in their mall then you have to obey their rules. They built their mall on their reputation of ensuring that customers don’t get ripped off and that the quality of goods and services is high. If you read the lawsuit, Epic approached Apple because they wanted to open their own App Store on iOS and sell apps directly to customers, bypassing Apple’s review process and payment systems. Apple, consistent with their policy, said unequivocally no to epic. 

    To stretch the analogy, Epic wanted to open their own mall in Apple’s parking lot. Selling the same stuff, backed by Apple’s reputation (because, hey..they’re on Apple Mall property they must be approved by Apple Mall...right?), but with their own cash registers and payment vendors. Ones that are more like paiepal and vynmoe that charge Epic less money to process transactions. Mall customers may not see the difference until something goes wrong, and then it really goes wrong. Who takes the reputation hit then? Is it the parking lot mall or do customers go right into the mall office and complain? Apple Mall ultimately gets blamed for a shoddy transaction conducted in their parking lot, that they had no control over or input into. 

    Apple is protecting their business reputation by insisting on strict rules. Epic is saying that while Apple’s Mall is great, it should be like all the other malls and offer crappy products with lousy customer service because having to meet Apple Mall’s quality and payment standards is just unfair. 


    Rayz2016GG1Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 55
    Interestingly, Epic has taken down from Fortnite the big splash screen advertising the hashtag for their movement (I won't repeat it here) but they still do have the discount bait page. I wonder if that means anything?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 55
    david808 said:

    PDRPRTS said:
    there is no choice outside the mall. you either sell in the mall or you cannot sell at all.

    I don’t agree with this. Apple isn’t saying that you cannot set up shop in a location that’s outside the mall, and not on mall property. There’s plenty of other malls. Android Mall is much bigger, but their customer service regularly gets lambasted for being horrible. Apple Mall is insisting that if you want to sell in their mall then you have to obey their rules. They built their mall on their reputation of ensuring that customers don’t get ripped off and that the quality of goods and services is high. If you read the lawsuit, Epic approached Apple because they wanted to open their own App Store on iOS and sell apps directly to customers, bypassing Apple’s review process and payment systems. Apple, consistent with their policy, said unequivocally no to epic. 

    To stretch the analogy, Epic wanted to open their own mall in Apple’s parking lot. Selling the same stuff, backed by Apple’s reputation (because, hey..they’re on Apple Mall property they must be approved by Apple Mall...right?), but with their own cash registers and payment vendors. Ones that are more like paiepal and vynmoe that charge Epic less money to process transactions. Mall customers may not see the difference until something goes wrong, and then it really goes wrong. Who takes the reputation hit then? Is it the parking lot mall or do customers go right into the mall office and complain? Apple Mall ultimately gets blamed for a shoddy transaction conducted in their parking lot, that they had no control over or input into. 

    Apple is protecting their business reputation by insisting on strict rules. Epic is saying that while Apple’s Mall is great, it should be like all the other malls and offer crappy products with lousy customer service because having to meet Apple Mall’s quality and payment standards is just unfair. 



    David there seems to be some miscommunication: im not talking about my opinion, which is actually the same as yours. im talking about anti-trust laws. Apple is trying to defend a Vertical Monopoly pattern with user safety - they themselves know that they cannot argue this case on comercial grounds like you are doing.

    Apple sells phones where i would normally be able to install apps from competitors should i choose to do so. Otherwise Apple is leveraging their Software business with Hardware business which is what is called a vertical monopoly. Microsoft was fined and forced to stop blocking non-IE browsers a couple of decades ago and this was just on the OS side.. So much so that in fact Apple already lost this case a couple of years ago - it is now legal to jailbrake. but still every new system update brakes this personal choice. Thing is anti-trust laws are outdated, especially in the case of Apple, because unlike even just a decade ago, Hardware and Software are hard to separate these days.

    Epic (and they are not the only ones) also has a valid case even with this reckless attitude, for we cannot confuse the mall - the App Store market -, with App installation. Unless the iPhone isnt considered our property, the law is very clear. Apple cannot actively or passively obstruct my choice of whatever to do with my property. And if you otherwise defend Apple's right to interfere with your property - in other words affirming that the iPhone is only lent to you -, id really make sure i understood what the repercussions of this are for the whole digital society, as this will escalate and expand to other companies and markets without a doubt. It wont matter if you are on Android or whatever, this will hit everybody. Both sides are important and a good solution has to be found for everyone's (including Apple's) sake.


  • Reply 26 of 55
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,394member
    The irony of this whole Epic thing is that they are bringing attention to the fact that Apple is not a monopolist. 

    Epic sells their games on Playstation, Xbox, Android, PC ,and iOS. Because of all those other platforms, Epic can afford to choose to reject Apple's App Store requirements. This sure looks like a competitive market to me. It does not sound like a company that is being bullied by Apple. 

    In fact, it seems to me that Epic believes they have a strong market position with Fortnite and they are trying to collude with multiple other people to exert market power on Apple. 

    So... I wonder if Epic might be surprised by how this plays out. 


    foregoneconclusioncivaGG1Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 55
    PDRPRTS said: Apple cannot actively or passively obstruct my choice of whatever to do with my property.
    The hardware is your own property. The software is not. It's being licensed to you. 
    mwhiteBart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 55
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Tim could always cut to the chase and yank their dev account and all certificates for their games at any time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 55
    civaciva Posts: 78member
    I will say this again: 

    When there's a retail store, and you have a product you want in their store, YOU PAY THAT STORE TO STOCK YOUR ITEM 
    What Epic wants to do is put their product on the shelf, but not have to pay the store. 

    Simple solution: Build your own platform and build your own store. 

    Meanwhile, I will enjoy not having malware on my phone. 

    Thank you. 
    SpamSandwichmwhiteGG1BeatsradarthekatBart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 55
    78Bandit78Bandit Posts: 238member
    JinTech said:
    These guys really know how to bite the hand that feeds them. I would love to see a report showing just how much Epic has grossed from Apple App Store sales alone.
    Would that look anything like a report showing how much construction companies in New York City have grossed from dealings with the politicians in control of the entire process?  Just because a company has made money from an arrangement doesn't mean that arrangement is fair, competitive, and in the best interest of consumers.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 55
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,625member
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. The point being that Apple is now threatening to remove anything that uses the Unreal Engine as well unless Epic toes the line. This would wipe out a lot of small developers that use it. Whether Apple is in the right or not, they are making themselves look like an abuser. They are painting a huge red target on their @$$ and daring the EU, the US Congress, the PRC government, and a hundred others to try and kick them. Unless this is settled soon, it could go very bad for Apple.
  • Reply 32 of 55
    civaciva Posts: 78member
    PDRPRTS said:
    normang said:

    The cart vendor has a choice, if he wants to be in the mall, he has to pay the fee that the mall requires to be there to use "their" space.   Your trying to create fairness where there is none, you can compete or you cannot.. If you decide to setup a cart in a saturated market, you had better be able to market and show that you have a far superior product, or your going to fail..    

    Epic has no valid case..  They are trying to upend the app store, and in the process even if somehow they succeeded, its unlikely that things would really improve for anyone else..   It would merely show that if you legally force your will on someone its no different than totalitarianism I assume you decry.. 
    normang, you dont understand i agree with you. in what concerns the mall there is no question whatsoever you are right.. but beyond your point, there is no choice outside the mall. you either sell in the mall or you cannot sell at all. that is illegal under classic anti-trust laws. thing is the world is very different from when they were put in place. this case will inevitably prompt a long due revision.

    if i was a seller i would even choose myself to be in the mall, as i believe it is a good deal and i do not think 30% is a high fee. but the fact that one cannot sell outside of the mall artificially is illegal regardless of our opinion.. if an app works on a device but cant because of barriers created to prevent this for comercial reasons, this barrier is illegal - it is a fundamental aspect of anti-trust laws.

    Apple says it is not for comercial reasons, that it is protecting its users - ok, it is a valid point.. but one that never arose before in anti-trust cases.. for much less Microsoft was condemned in the browser war times. totalitarism is essentially "my way or the highway", and this is what you are defending.. i could agree with you in the case of the App Store, but how can you justify this in the case of App installation on iOS? You see when "my way" is our way that all seems fine, but if this case goes through in time we might be prevented from financial survival unless we are a corporation. it is not a small thing in the long run. you might be able to bake cakes and not be able to do this because some large bakery doesnt think you bake safe, or worse, doesnt want competition.
    Incorrect. 
    There's still PC platforms. 
    Epic wants to be able to make money off the backs of the work of others, and not pay for it, i.e.: use app stores built by someone else, and not pay the fee. 
    The retail analogy is correct, and how business is done. 
    If they want to control the platform and reap all the benefits, they can build their own store and platform. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 55
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,394member
    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. The point being that Apple is now threatening to remove anything that uses the Unreal Engine as well unless Epic toes the line. This would wipe out a lot of small developers that use it. Whether Apple is in the right or not, they are making themselves look like an abuser. They are painting a huge red target on their @$$ and daring the EU, the US Congress, the PRC government, and a hundred others to try and kick them. Unless this is settled soon, it could go very bad for Apple.
    I think it's the opposite. Epic is showing regulators that they don't need Apple because there are so many other outlets for them to sell their products (Playstation, Xbox, PC, Android). 

    Antitrust applies when there's a monopoly. Where is Apple's monopoly of devices that can play FortNite or Unreal Engine games? 
    GG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 55
    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. 
    9to5Mac doesn't know what they're talking about per antitrust. They had an article up where the author claimed that there were only six possible outcomes to Epic's lawsuit, and only one of them involved Apple winning in court. They seem to think the whole thing is a slam dunk for Epic, which is laughable. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 55
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. The point being that Apple is now threatening to remove anything that uses the Unreal Engine as well unless Epic toes the line. This would wipe out a lot of small developers that use it. Whether Apple is in the right or not, they are making themselves look like an abuser. They are painting a huge red target on their @$$ and daring the EU, the US Congress, the PRC government, and a hundred others to try and kick them. Unless this is settled soon, it could go very bad for Apple.
    Come on, now. You know better than this.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 55
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member

    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. 
    9to5Mac doesn't know what they're talking about per antitrust. They had an article up where the author claimed that there were only six possible outcomes to Epic's lawsuit, and only one of them involved Apple winning in court. They seem to think the whole thing is a slam dunk for Epic, which is laughable. 
    Criticizing Apple always gets more eyeballs from readers than positive articles. That’s just part of the equation of being on top of the heap.
    Beatstmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 55
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,625member
    blastdoor said:
    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. The point being that Apple is now threatening to remove anything that uses the Unreal Engine as well unless Epic toes the line. This would wipe out a lot of small developers that use it. Whether Apple is in the right or not, they are making themselves look like an abuser. They are painting a huge red target on their @$$ and daring the EU, the US Congress, the PRC government, and a hundred others to try and kick them. Unless this is settled soon, it could go very bad for Apple.
    I think it's the opposite. Epic is showing regulators that they don't need Apple because there are so many other outlets for them to sell their products (Playstation, Xbox, PC, Android). 

    Antitrust applies when there's a monopoly. Where is Apple's monopoly of devices that can play FortNite or Unreal Engine games? 
    But not if they put up a brave fight and then finally, and with much show, capitulate to the Big Brother Apple. They lose, but Apple looks like the bad guy. Political types love to be seen stepping in to help the little guy against some big bad corporate monster, real or imagined.
    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. 
    9to5Mac doesn't know what they're talking about per antitrust. They had an article up where the author claimed that there were only six possible outcomes to Epic's lawsuit, and only one of them involved Apple winning in court. They seem to think the whole thing is a slam dunk for Epic, which is laughable. 
    Whether it is a real monopoly or antitrust violation or not is irrelevant. This is political theater and the perception of Apple as the bad guy, which EPIC is crafting with great skill is what will end up mattering.


    edited August 2020 Bart Y
  • Reply 38 of 55
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    DAalseth said:
    blastdoor said:
    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. The point being that Apple is now threatening to remove anything that uses the Unreal Engine as well unless Epic toes the line. This would wipe out a lot of small developers that use it. Whether Apple is in the right or not, they are making themselves look like an abuser. They are painting a huge red target on their @$$ and daring the EU, the US Congress, the PRC government, and a hundred others to try and kick them. Unless this is settled soon, it could go very bad for Apple.
    I think it's the opposite. Epic is showing regulators that they don't need Apple because there are so many other outlets for them to sell their products (Playstation, Xbox, PC, Android). 

    Antitrust applies when there's a monopoly. Where is Apple's monopoly of devices that can play FortNite or Unreal Engine games? 
    But not if they put up a brave fight and then finally, and with much show, capitulate to the Big Brother Apple. They lose, but Apple looks like the bad guy. Political types love to be seen stepping in to help the little guy against some big bad corporate monster, real or imagined.
    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. 
    9to5Mac doesn't know what they're talking about per antitrust. They had an article up where the author claimed that there were only six possible outcomes to Epic's lawsuit, and only one of them involved Apple winning in court. They seem to think the whole thing is a slam dunk for Epic, which is laughable. 
    Whether it is a real monopoly or antitrust violation or not is irrelevant. This is political theater and the perception of Apple as the bad guy, which EPIC is crafting with great skill is what will end up mattering.


    I’d be willing to bet a lot of those in Congress have their own personal money tied up in Apple stock...

    Oh, look what I found:  http://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/search_details?filter=T&original_query=apple&q=Apple+Inc&type=company


    edited August 2020 GG1
  • Reply 39 of 55
    DAalseth said: Whether it is a real monopoly or antitrust violation or not is irrelevant. This is political theater and the perception of Apple as the bad guy, which EPIC is crafting with great skill is what will end up mattering.
    It's relevant when they're writing an article about regulators. Regulators have to operate based on the law as currently written. From what I've read on 9to5Mac, I don't think they have a very good grasp of the law in that area. 

    For example: 9to5Mac seems to believe that if a business violates a contract in a way that could harm it's own customers (like iOS or macOS developers that want to use the Unreal Engine could be harmed if Epic loses all of it's developer privileges), then enforcing the penalty for violating the contract is a potential violation of antitrust law. Huh? 
    edited August 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 55
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,434member

    DAalseth said:
    Over on 9to5Mac they just posted an article “Apple is now poking antitrust regulators with a stick”. 
    9to5Mac doesn't know what they're talking about per antitrust. They had an article up where the author claimed that there were only six possible outcomes to Epic's lawsuit, and only one of them involved Apple winning in court. They seem to think the whole thing is a slam dunk for Epic, which is laughable. 
    Criticizing Apple always gets more eyeballs from readers than positive articles. That’s just part of the equation of being on top of the heap.

    Gets the most lies too.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.