osmartormenajr

I don't think the parallel they're trying to drawn between iMessage on Android, and Epic's shenanigans is really there.

iMessage on Android would be a great convenience for Apple costumers who happen to have a lot of less tasteful friends, acquaintances, coworkers, etc.—also there is the money side of this. That would bring no extra money to either Apple or Android manufactures—or Google for that matter. Apple elected not to do it, as was their choice, and then the market decided if that was a good or bad move to the company, to which I say it meant very little to nothing.

Now Epic is trying to use Apple's APIs and infrastructure to make millions—which they did—while only paying 100 bucks annually for a developer account! Now can anyone explain to me how is that the model of a sustainable business relationship? A while back someone make some back of hand calculations about the cost of distributing Fortnite (a free app) to Apple hardware, given some official numbers available. The bill was up to 100,000 bucks, just in server costs! That's a thousand times what Epic purportedly wants to pay.

Apple is a company that almost got broke 25 years ago. I guess they don't expect another miracle if they start doing deals like that again.

Good for them! I hope Spotify keeps afloat even if just so that Apple keeps its Music services on its toes.

But I'd think this quarter report doesn't quite ring the note they are trying to resonate inside the courtroom. Now they just got to figure out how to fault Apple for that too.

Or, you know, you could just use Safari?!?!

That really is a testament about how bad Chrome got over the years, because it didn't started this way. At my work I sometimes have to work on a PC, where I have sampled Edge, Chrome, Firefox, and Opera. Firefox and Opera are my favorites when I'm not working with Apple hardware. Edge is quite frustrating to use. But only Chrome can bring a 16 GB desktop to its knees. It's just absurd!

IMHO streaming software should be motivated by hardware limitations, like when most people would like to play an intense 3D game sometimes, but would prefer not to buy expensive gear just for that. Now streaming a browser to well capable hardware because the software is kludge is missing the point of developing software altogether.

dantheman827 said:

Makes you wonder what Apple is trying to hide here.

Nothing. Those documents, most probably, were attorney eyes only. That means Epic doesn't get to see them, only their legal counsel, and within the scope of current procedures. If they are included into the actual proceedings, then they become a matter of pubic record—or almost so.

There are a virtual infinity of legitimate reasons Apple wouldn't like to have that information available publicly. Most likely it is for competitive reasons.

However, given that here is a forum, and you've proved yourself knowledgeable into legal matters and procedure with your 10 word (mike-drop) sentence, please do enlighten us about what is really going on. Perhaps you could link to an Alex Jones video, doing a full exposé.

Don't like Apple products? Don't like how they conduct the terms of service? Just buy from someone else! You know that monopoly talk is just BS right? There are options on the market that don't make you comply with Apple interests. Funny thing though: they all suck!

Beats said:

I wonder with the public’s recent enlightenment of Facebook being run by scumbags if that caused Epic to change their mind?

Us nerds know Facebook execs are scumbags like Epic but the public just found out and Epic seems to want to win by public opinion and propaganda.

Nothing recent about that discovery. Although you have to give Facebook credit: they don't let that fact slide out of public awareness very often...