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.
From what I know, MS was just involved with the Unreal Engine issue, and not with Fortnite. And based in the judge decision, looks like there were right.
And I find interesting how you mention MS and antitrust violations, considering that as today, they are not part of the latest governments investigations, as Apple is. That's rich...
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.
The considerations for the preliminary injunction will be essentially the same as they were for the temporary restraining order. So, yes, to some extent what Epic is asking for isn't different from what it already asked for and was in-part denied and in-part granted.
But Epic had to file this motion for preliminary injunction when it did pursuant to the scheduling that was already set at the August 24th hearing. Epic can now try - with somewhat different arguments or based on additional information - to establish what it wasn't able to establish at the TRO hearing. I don't think it's likely that it will succeed. But new information could, in theory, allow it to meet its burdens on the balance of equities, irreparable harm, and public interest factors.
Further, even if Epic can't get any new relief it surely wants to keep Apple from being able to terminate its associated developer accounts - i.e., those which the court effectively barred it from terminating with the TRO. A TRO is, of course, temporary. Epic needs a preliminary injunction if it wants the relief granted in that TRO to continue.
Lastly, there is something that is different now and which Epic might want relief on even if it can't get what it wanted (and was denied) in the TRO. Apple informed Epic that it would deny Epic's reapplication for the developer program for at least a year. Epic might want Apple enjoined from making it wait a year to reapply. I think the consideration of the relevant factors might be a little different when it comes to that than they were when it came to Apple being Apple to terminate the account if Epic didn't submit a compliant version of Fortnite.
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.
To be clear, when Epic referred to harm not being calculable it wasn't referring to the harm to Fortnite players. It did argue that players are suffering harm, that's relevant to the public interest factors. But what it said cannot be calculated in damages was (some kinds of) harm to Fortnite - i.e., to Epic. That's relevant to the irreparable harm factor. If the harm to Epic can't be calculated, then it might be irreparable. A court wouldn't later be able to calculate what Epic was entitled to in order to repair the harm caused by Apple's actions (in the absence of a preliminary injunction).
When it comes to harm to Fortnite players, that doesn't need to be irreparable in order for Epic to demonstrate that issuing a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Epic is trying to show, among other things, harm to third parties, e.g. Fortnite players. But it doesn't need to show incalculable or irreparable harm to them.
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.
Yes, I think the antitrust issues are more complicated than some recognize. And, yes, Apple may be found to have monopoly power in a relevant market and to have used that power illegally.
That said, users may own the devices but they don't own iOS. Apple licenses iOS's use to, e.g., device owners. It has a legal monopoly on the use of its intellectual property, to include iOS. And even if device owners have a legal right to use iOS in ways that Apple hasn't licensed - e.g., by loading apps onto their devices other than through the App Store - that doesn't necessarily, and shouldn't, mean that Apple has to help them do that. If they want to change the software on their devices to allow apps to be loaded other than through the App Store, okay. But Apple shouldn't have to change the way its software works in order to facilitate that.
Further, even if iOS device owners have the right and ability to load apps other than through the App Store, that doesn't mean that iOS developers have the right to develop iOS apps to be thusly loaded. In developing iOS apps they are using Apple's intellectual property. Apple doesn't, and shouldn't, have to allow them to do that.
All that said, Epic is making an interesting antitrust argument. But I don't agree with it. I don't think iOS app distribution and IAP should be considered separate antitrust markets. They are part of the same market; the latter is just one way to generate revenue within the former market. I also don't think iOS app distribution should - in itself - be considered a relevant market. But under our antitrust laws and precedents it may well be.
Apple has a legal monopoly on iOS. The real question is, is it allowed to use that legal monopoly in certain ways - e.g., to require developers to distribute iOS apps through the App Store or otherwise not license them to develop for iOS. I think it should be allowed to do that. But courts may eventually decide that it isn't. They may also decide, e.g., that even if Apple can require apps to be distributed through the App Store it can't then use that (iOS app distribution) monopoly to require that in-app purchases be made through Apple. That's what Epic is arguing.
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.
Yeah, that's the issue. The suggestion isn't necessarily that the harm (to Epic's Fortnite app) would be so huge that it can't be allowed to happen. The suggestion is that it won't be calculable and thus is irreparable. A court won't later be able to figure out how much harm was really done, and thus won't be able to compensate Epic after the fact with a damages award.
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.
I know that manufactures and distributors have to pay Sony, MS and Nintendo. In this case, I'm talking about customers and developers, and they have options to purchase and distribute their games outside the digital App Store. The same can't be said for Apple mobile devices. IMO, that's the reason I think you cannot compare Apple mobile devices with consoles.
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.
If you are talking about boxed games, maybe they pull out that option, maybe not. Considering that next gen device will have disk drives, looks like boxed games will be available for the next few years.
From what I know, MS was just involved with the Unreal Engine issue, and not with Fortnite. And based in the judge decision, looks like there were right.
And I find interesting how you mention MS and antitrust violations, considering that as today, they are not part of the latest governments investigations, as Apple is. That's rich...
Oh snap! You got me... well no, you didn’t. Not really.
Go read about the history of tech industry for the last three decades. Then try and figure out yourself why my point is valid, while yours isn’t.
Microsoft was the one big boy on the block when it had its antitrust grievances, about two decades ago. Now, they don’t even break top four, and that’s why that dog isn’t barking.
Also, read the room man. Everyone that quoted you here had your points shoot down, and called you some variation of misinformed. If you think that everyone one here is a fanboy, there’s little I can do to disabuse you of that notion. Except to point out that the forum, and Editorial content, are full of criticism, when that is due. Nobody’s fault that seldom happens.
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.
Mike, I haven't seen a single mention here about digital signature requirements on console games. I believe some consoles like the Playstation 3 require digital signatures to be able to play any game that you buy from a box or retailer. This means it's a myth when people say we can "go to a retailer to purchase a boxed game". The digital signature requirement requires cooperation from the console manufacturer, so in a practical sense the company that boxes the software needs the same approval from the console manufacturer than they would need from Apple to sell apps on the App Store. I don't blame people for not understanding this because very few people understand cryptography. I would appreciate if AppleInsider could expand on which consoles require a signed hash before their software can operate on a console.
From what I know, MS was just involved with the Unreal Engine issue, and not with Fortnite. And based in the judge decision, looks like there were right.
And I find interesting how you mention MS and antitrust violations, considering that as today, they are not part of the latest governments investigations, as Apple is. That's rich...
Oh snap! You got me... well no, you didn’t. Not really.
Go read about the history of tech industry for the last three decades. Then try and figure out yourself why my point is valid, while yours isn’t.
Why do I have to go back 30 years when MS is nowhere to be seen in investigations from 2020? MS made a lot of mistakes in the past, and looks like they learned, considering they are not part of recent investigations.
Microsoft was the one big boy on the block when it had its antitrust grievances, about two decades ago. Now, they don’t even break top four, and that’s why that dog isn’t barking.
As today, MS is 3rd at market valuation, very close to Amazon second spot. Still the largest software developer in the world Windows and MS Office still dominating the desktop with +/- 90% of marketshare MS still the leader in enterprise software (Windows, SQL, Exchange, SharePoint, etc) MS Azure and Office 365 are two of the top cloud services in the SaaS and IaaS markets
It looks like the dog still barking.
Also, read the room man. Everyone that quoted you here had your points shoot down, and called you some variation of misinformed. If you think that everyone one here is a fanboy, there’s little I can do to disabuse you of that notion. Except to point out that the forum, and Editorial content, are full of criticism, when that is due. Nobody’s fault that seldom happens.
I read other comments, and still think that consoles are different. If you compare just from a digital store POV, it maybe similar. But when you consider that consoles allow physical media, I think it makes a difference. A developer may not like the fees of conditions / restrictions from a digital store, and it can decide to go just with physical media. And a customer may prefer physical media because it can be easily shared and even sell it in the future. These options don't exist with Apple mobile devices. See why I think that consoles and Apple mobile devices are different? Could this change in the near future? Of course, considering the push to digital games and game subscriptions. But as today, I think they are different.
Had some posts shoot down mine? Maybe, maybe not. I respect others people opinion, and have no issues when they disagree with me. I think is good to hear other people comments, and I don't consider most of them fanboys, since in many cases, they have valid points And I suppose there are cases my comments have valid arguments too.
They must have redefined "incalculable harm" when I wasn't paying attention.
Tim Sweeney is so fucking pathetic. Never seen a more whiny, despicable, attention-whoring, exploitative, disingenuous, shady company.
Epic can go fuck itself. I wasn't happy with 70% of something, even though it was literally free money requiring very little investment - hope they're happier with 0%.
blah blah blah. Rules is Rules, period. You signed agreement and it’s too late. You cannot force Apple to bent their rules. You signed, Apple win. End of discussion. Now leave Apple the fucking alone. You lose! Judge denied your request. Now shut the fucking up!
From what I know, MS was just involved with the Unreal Engine issue, and not with Fortnite. And based in the judge decision, looks like there were right.
And I find interesting how you mention MS and antitrust violations, considering that as today, they are not part of the latest governments investigations, as Apple is. That's rich...
Oh snap! You got me... well no, you didn’t. Not really.
Go read about the history of tech industry for the last three decades. Then try and figure out yourself why my point is valid, while yours isn’t.
Why do I have to go back 30 years when MS is nowhere to be seen in investigations from 2020? MS made a lot of mistakes in the past, and looks like they learned, considering they are not part of recent investigations.
Microsoft was the one big boy on the block when it had its antitrust grievances, about two decades ago. Now, they don’t even break top four, and that’s why that dog isn’t barking.
As today, MS is 3rd at market valuation, very close to Amazon second spot. Still the largest software developer in the world Windows and MS Office still dominating the desktop with +/- 90% of marketshare MS still the leader in enterprise software (Windows, SQL, Exchange, SharePoint, etc) MS Azure and Office 365 are two of the top cloud services in the SaaS and IaaS markets
It looks like the dog still barking.
Also, read the room man. Everyone that quoted you here had your points shoot down, and called you some variation of misinformed. If you think that everyone one here is a fanboy, there’s little I can do to disabuse you of that notion. Except to point out that the forum, and Editorial content, are full of criticism, when that is due. Nobody’s fault that seldom happens.
I read other comments, and still think that consoles are different. If you compare just from a digital store POV, it maybe similar. But when you consider that consoles allow physical media, I think it makes a difference. A developer may not like the fees of conditions / restrictions from a digital store, and it can decide to go just with physical media. And a customer may prefer physical media because it can be easily shared and even sell it in the future. These options don't exist with Apple mobile devices. See why I think that consoles and Apple mobile devices are different? Could this change in the near future? Of course, considering the push to digital games and game subscriptions. But as today, I think they are different.
Had some posts shoot down mine? Maybe, maybe not. I respect others people opinion, and have no issues when they disagree with me. I think is good to hear other people comments, and I don't consider most of them fanboys, since in many cases, they have valid points And I suppose there are cases my comments have valid arguments too.
Read the post from 22july2013 above your last, and for the last time, try and understand that you are pointing at a distinction without a difference, concerning digital and physical games distribution for consoles.
You’ve misunderstood about half of what I wrote you, or just understood in a way that suited your narrative. Be that as it may, although I think it is fun sparring on ideas and points of view during the weekend, it’s already Monday where I live, and I’ll focus my efforts on my job.
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...
Ok ... get back to work! 😛
yes, not being able to play fort nite may be an irritation, but I’m guessing those who play also play other games, too. Pretty much everyone agrees that the only harm to come from this is to Epic’s bottom line.
According to my 16 year old son, fort nite has gone down hill and ‘no one’ plays it anymore anyways. This may just be another nail in its coffin.
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.
I know that manufactures and distributors have to pay Sony, MS and Nintendo. In this case, I'm talking about customers and developers, and they have options to purchase and distribute their games outside the digital App Store. The same can't be said for Apple mobile devices. IMO, that's the reason I think you cannot compare Apple mobile devices with consoles.
You're missing the point. It isn't just the retail costs.
Joe Rando can't pop up, and start selling Xbox or Playstation games on pressed DVDs. Regardless of where the games are bought, Microsoft and Sony still gatekeep the marketplaces.
It s almost funny - if it weren’t actually happening in court.
But it’s actually very frustrating to see such brazen and arrogant theft.
Epic goes on and on about how Apple is hurting users by taking Fortnite down. How important Fortnite is and how people must have access to it.
In reality it’s just a multiplayer game with chat. Regardless of what the players talk about etc.
And the real crazy part is thst it’s not Apple thst is hurting users. EPIC IS HURTING USERS. And it’s on purpose to try to force the the entire market to bow to them. They feel a popular game is enough leverage to bully everyone else -including the biggest company in the world - and not give partners their just due.
Epic started this by Firing a shot with an update INTENDING to violate the marketplace rules and extort their partners. Then they want to blame thst partner for raddrrssing the violation.
Epic hurt it’s own users. It can easily “unhurt” them by fixing the app they broke.
Boom. Done. Any “damage” thst has taken place or will take place is entirely Epics fault.
You don’t steal customers from an auto shop you work at by telling them to go to your home garage instead. You get fired. And then you don’t complain about it. You apologize. And that’s what epic needs to do now. Publicly.
Either they are really that immoral and stupid or they are just trying to get Apple to buy them.
Congrats Epic (Sweeney), you made your bed, now go lay down on it. How might you have imagined this misguided campaign against Apple would have served you well; would have served your former customers well? In the end, not only are you doing a disservice to them, you are doing a disservice to any developer using UnReal Engine, as the results of this could take that down too. Your plan seems to have been……Ready, Fire, Aim!
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.
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.
Unless it's an older game that is played wholly from the disc, MS can stop the loading and playing of any game on their X-Box platform. Now of days, games on a disc still have to be downloaded from the MS store. The only thing on the disc is the key to unlock the game. So the disc must always be in the console when playing the game that was downloaded using that key. This allows you to share the game with others as the game can be downloaded onto more than one X-Box, but only one person can be playing the game at a time because there is only one disc with the proper key code.
If MS has an issue with a developer not wanting to pay the 30% commission on sales from the MS store, MS can stop the physical disc from playing, that the developer sold from retail stores. MS has full monopoly control on what can be played on their X-Box. Even if one buys the disc. You actually think that if MS have an issue with a developer violating their license, that MS would allow the developer to sell their games on a disc at a retailer and let it load into an X-Box? Once MS revoke a developers license, those disc bought at retailers will no longer work.
And like how Apple can even prevent already downloaded games from playing, if they want, so can MS. Just because you had the choice to buy the game on a disc, it doesn't mean that MS have to let you play the games you own on a disc. MS can prevent you from playing those games you have on disc, if they have an issue with the developer's license for those games. MS might have to issue you a refund or credit, if they stop the game on those disc from playing. But don't be under the impression that you have any control of what games you can play on an X-Box, just because you own the disc. You only have full control of the older games that don't require you to go online to activate with a key on the disc. And none of those games are online gaming.
From what I know, MS was just involved with the Unreal Engine issue, and not with Fortnite. And based in the judge decision, looks like there were right.
And I find interesting how you mention MS and antitrust violations, considering that as today, they are not part of the latest governments investigations, as Apple is. That's rich...
Oh snap! You got me... well no, you didn’t. Not really.
Go read about the history of tech industry for the last three decades. Then try and figure out yourself why my point is valid, while yours isn’t.
Why do I have to go back 30 years when MS is nowhere to be seen in investigations from 2020? MS made a lot of mistakes in the past, and looks like they learned, considering they are not part of recent investigations.
Microsoft was the one big boy on the block when it had its antitrust grievances, about two decades ago. Now, they don’t even break top four, and that’s why that dog isn’t barking.
As today, MS is 3rd at market valuation, very close to Amazon second spot. Still the largest software developer in the world Windows and MS Office still dominating the desktop with +/- 90% of marketshare MS still the leader in enterprise software (Windows, SQL, Exchange, SharePoint, etc) MS Azure and Office 365 are two of the top cloud services in the SaaS and IaaS markets
It looks like the dog still barking.
Also, read the room man. Everyone that quoted you here had your points shoot down, and called you some variation of misinformed. If you think that everyone one here is a fanboy, there’s little I can do to disabuse you of that notion. Except to point out that the forum, and Editorial content, are full of criticism, when that is due. Nobody’s fault that seldom happens.
I read other comments, and still think that consoles are different. If you compare just from a digital store POV, it maybe similar. But when you consider that consoles allow physical media, I think it makes a difference. A developer may not like the fees of conditions / restrictions from a digital store, and it can decide to go just with physical media. And a customer may prefer physical media because it can be easily shared and even sell it in the future. These options don't exist with Apple mobile devices. See why I think that consoles and Apple mobile devices are different? Could this change in the near future? Of course, considering the push to digital games and game subscriptions. But as today, I think they are different.
Had some posts shoot down mine? Maybe, maybe not. I respect others people opinion, and have no issues when they disagree with me. I think is good to hear other people comments, and I don't consider most of them fanboys, since in many cases, they have valid points And I suppose there are cases my comments have valid arguments too.
Read the post from 22july2013 above your last, and for the last time, try and understand that you are pointing at a distinction without a difference, concerning digital and physical games distribution for consoles.
You’ve misunderstood about half of what I wrote you, or just understood in a way that suited your narrative. Be that as it may, although I think it is fun sparring on ideas and points of view during the weekend, it’s already Monday where I live, and I’ll focus my efforts on my job.
Good luck to you!
I read again the posts, and, as you said, I definitely misunderstood the original comment I respond. English is not my main language, and from time to time I miss the point of what I read.
BTW, what I post are opinions of what read, which in this case, I misunderstood. I don't care for Epic, neither for Apple (or any company at all), even though I have many Apple devices. So be sure that my posts are just opinions and my POV, and have no intentions to fit a narrative, as you said.
Comments
And I find interesting how you mention MS and antitrust violations, considering that as today, they are not part of the latest governments investigations, as Apple is. That's rich...
But Epic had to file this motion for preliminary injunction when it did pursuant to the scheduling that was already set at the August 24th hearing. Epic can now try - with somewhat different arguments or based on additional information - to establish what it wasn't able to establish at the TRO hearing. I don't think it's likely that it will succeed. But new information could, in theory, allow it to meet its burdens on the balance of equities, irreparable harm, and public interest factors.
Further, even if Epic can't get any new relief it surely wants to keep Apple from being able to terminate its associated developer accounts - i.e., those which the court effectively barred it from terminating with the TRO. A TRO is, of course, temporary. Epic needs a preliminary injunction if it wants the relief granted in that TRO to continue.
Lastly, there is something that is different now and which Epic might want relief on even if it can't get what it wanted (and was denied) in the TRO. Apple informed Epic that it would deny Epic's reapplication for the developer program for at least a year. Epic might want Apple enjoined from making it wait a year to reapply. I think the consideration of the relevant factors might be a little different when it comes to that than they were when it came to Apple being Apple to terminate the account if Epic didn't submit a compliant version of Fortnite.
When it comes to harm to Fortnite players, that doesn't need to be irreparable in order for Epic to demonstrate that issuing a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Epic is trying to show, among other things, harm to third parties, e.g. Fortnite players. But it doesn't need to show incalculable or irreparable harm to them.
That said, users may own the devices but they don't own iOS. Apple licenses iOS's use to, e.g., device owners. It has a legal monopoly on the use of its intellectual property, to include iOS. And even if device owners have a legal right to use iOS in ways that Apple hasn't licensed - e.g., by loading apps onto their devices other than through the App Store - that doesn't necessarily, and shouldn't, mean that Apple has to help them do that. If they want to change the software on their devices to allow apps to be loaded other than through the App Store, okay. But Apple shouldn't have to change the way its software works in order to facilitate that.
Further, even if iOS device owners have the right and ability to load apps other than through the App Store, that doesn't mean that iOS developers have the right to develop iOS apps to be thusly loaded. In developing iOS apps they are using Apple's intellectual property. Apple doesn't, and shouldn't, have to allow them to do that.
All that said, Epic is making an interesting antitrust argument. But I don't agree with it. I don't think iOS app distribution and IAP should be considered separate antitrust markets. They are part of the same market; the latter is just one way to generate revenue within the former market. I also don't think iOS app distribution should - in itself - be considered a relevant market. But under our antitrust laws and precedents it may well be.
Apple has a legal monopoly on iOS. The real question is, is it allowed to use that legal monopoly in certain ways - e.g., to require developers to distribute iOS apps through the App Store or otherwise not license them to develop for iOS. I think it should be allowed to do that. But courts may eventually decide that it isn't. They may also decide, e.g., that even if Apple can require apps to be distributed through the App Store it can't then use that (iOS app distribution) monopoly to require that in-app purchases be made through Apple. That's what Epic is arguing.
Go read about the history of tech industry for the last three decades. Then try and figure out yourself why my point is valid, while yours isn’t.
Microsoft was the one big boy on the block when it had its antitrust grievances, about two decades ago. Now, they don’t even break top four, and that’s why that dog isn’t barking.
Also, read the room man. Everyone that quoted you here had your points shoot down, and called you some variation of misinformed. If you think that everyone one here is a fanboy, there’s little I can do to disabuse you of that notion. Except to point out that the forum, and Editorial content, are full of criticism, when that is due. Nobody’s fault that seldom happens.
As today, MS is 3rd at market valuation, very close to Amazon second spot.
Still the largest software developer in the world
Windows and MS Office still dominating the desktop with +/- 90% of marketshare
MS still the leader in enterprise software (Windows, SQL, Exchange, SharePoint, etc)
MS Azure and Office 365 are two of the top cloud services in the SaaS and IaaS markets
It looks like the dog still barking.
I read other comments, and still think that consoles are different. If you compare just from a digital store POV, it maybe similar. But when you consider that consoles allow physical media, I think it makes a difference. A developer may not like the fees of conditions / restrictions from a digital store, and it can decide to go just with physical media. And a customer may prefer physical media because it can be easily shared and even sell it in the future. These options don't exist with Apple mobile devices. See why I think that consoles and Apple mobile devices are different? Could this change in the near future? Of course, considering the push to digital games and game subscriptions. But as today, I think they are different.
Had some posts shoot down mine? Maybe, maybe not. I respect others people opinion, and have no issues when they disagree with me. I think is good to hear other people comments, and I don't consider most of them fanboys, since in many cases, they have valid points And I suppose there are cases my comments have valid arguments too.
They must have redefined "incalculable harm" when I wasn't paying attention.
Tim Sweeney is so fucking pathetic. Never seen a more whiny, despicable, attention-whoring, exploitative, disingenuous, shady company.
Epic can go fuck itself. I wasn't happy with 70% of something, even though it was literally free money requiring very little investment - hope they're happier with 0%.
blah blah blah. Rules is Rules, period. You signed agreement and it’s too late. You cannot force Apple to bent their rules. You signed, Apple win. End of discussion. Now leave Apple the fucking alone. You lose! Judge denied your request. Now shut the fucking up!
You’ve misunderstood about half of what I wrote you, or just understood in a way that suited your narrative. Be that as it may, although I think it is fun sparring on ideas and points of view during the weekend, it’s already Monday where I live, and I’ll focus my efforts on my job.
Good luck to you!
yes, not being able to play fort nite may be an irritation, but I’m guessing those who play also play other games, too. Pretty much everyone agrees that the only harm to come from this is to Epic’s bottom line.
s almost funny - if it weren’t actually happening in court.
And the real crazy part is thst it’s not Apple thst is hurting users. EPIC IS HURTING USERS. And it’s on purpose to try to force the the entire market to bow to them. They feel a popular game is enough leverage to bully everyone else -including the biggest company in the world - and not give partners their just due.
If MS has an issue with a developer not wanting to pay the 30% commission on sales from the MS store, MS can stop the physical disc from playing, that the developer sold from retail stores. MS has full monopoly control on what can be played on their X-Box. Even if one buys the disc. You actually think that if MS have an issue with a developer violating their license, that MS would allow the developer to sell their games on a disc at a retailer and let it load into an X-Box? Once MS revoke a developers license, those disc bought at retailers will no longer work.
And like how Apple can even prevent already downloaded games from playing, if they want, so can MS. Just because you had the choice to buy the game on a disc, it doesn't mean that MS have to let you play the games you own on a disc. MS can prevent you from playing those games you have on disc, if they have an issue with the developer's license for those games. MS might have to issue you a refund or credit, if they stop the game on those disc from playing. But don't be under the impression that you have any control of what games you can play on an X-Box, just because you own the disc. You only have full control of the older games that don't require you to go online to activate with a key on the disc. And none of those games are online gaming.
BTW, what I post are opinions of what read, which in this case, I misunderstood. I don't care for Epic, neither for Apple (or any company at all), even though I have many Apple devices. So be sure that my posts are just opinions and my POV, and have no intentions to fit a narrative, as you said.