Madbum

derekmorr said:

Madbum said:

Epic doesn’t have to sell in Apples App Store. The store did t exist before Apple spent billions over last 15 years developing it.

But Apple won't let competing app stores on iOS. That is what Epic claims is illegal. 

So if you sell your salted peanuts at Safeway, on the shelves.  and now you decided you want to go against Safeway rules and build a store in aisle 7 with you own cashier  and not pay Safeway  

do you think Safeway goes for that?

but if you go outside of Safeway and lease you own space and build yiu store and pull your stuff out of Safeway, I am pretty sure Safeway would not have an issue

again Sweeney is an agent of communist China, that is just as bad as Putin, so there is no need to even discuss them as actual human beings 

derekmorr said:

Madbum said:

mangakatten said:

Isn’t it more like Railroad companies blocking competitors from driving their own trains and selling tickets on the Railroad companies tracks? That being said I kinda wish Epic would give up, I wanna play Fortnite again. 

Well if the railroads were built and owned privately by railroad company A, why would they need to let rail company B use it for free or dictate any rules?

Should your ISP be able to decide what websites or online services you can use? 

Do you tell you ISP how much you feel you should pay for their services?

Also, Apple is not telling what games or services  Epic can sell but only they must follow store rules and fees if they chose to use Apples store.

AppleZulu said:

InspiredCode said:

My thoughts on what should be regulated and what should be voluntary good behavior by Apple:

• Apple should stop rent-seeking and any government regulation should narrowly target this and nothing else. There are a couple significant sources of rent seeking on the App Store: (1) Apple shouldn't require more than transaction fees from direct competitors to its first party services. (2) Non-platform content like eBooks or audio books shouldn't require more than a transaction fee. 

• Apple should introduce a creator-content level of App Store IAP fees when there are three parties involved. These creators are similar to small developers that Apple only takes 15% from anyway. Apple could ultimately take 15% from these transactions and allow the app developer to take another 15% for a 30% total fee.

• The 30% fee is perfectly reasonable for games. Epic Games has nothing of merit to complain about when it comes to Fortnite.

• Any place the agency model is traditionally used should be exempt from incompatible fees, but generally that is just non-platform content that is covered by the first bullet point.

• The iPhone should not allow side-loading for security reasons, but Apple should voluntarily allow iPad (or at least iPad Pro) to side-load since it is marketed as a general purpose computer. It should allow open source software and complex workflows. With the direction that iPad is trending each release this feels inevitable. I don't think side-load should be required through any regulation since it is too blunt an instrument.

• Apple should allow game streaming because it essentially transforms the iPhone in to an input peripheral for another device (even if that device is a cloud server). This shouldn't be limited much like Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony doesn't restrict Apple from adding game controller support to iOS. There should be no expectation of content moderating for this class of app if it is listed for adult maturity levels. I think it is fair not to allow such an app in the game category of the App Store since it's not a game and it might dominate rankings essentially providing free advertising. It could be placed in a utility or entertainment category. Despite Apple previously saying the opposite, I don't think Apple should allow games in the games category that are just a thin wrapper around single-game streaming. Fortunately Microsoft opted not to do this. The games category should be for native games only.

• Apple should do whatever it takes to avoid streaming video services from sending you to a web page even if it means not taking more than a transaction fee. This burns good will from consumers that are increasingly aware that Apple is requiring this. It may be considered rent-seeking since Apple offers a first-party service that doesn't require fees although this is fuzzy since the actual content content is typically different. It is not commonplace to charge these fees on non-phone platforms and the medium is non-platform content.

Apple isn’t rent-seeking. They built and maintain the platform. They created a low-risk App Store that encourages customers to purchase apps, because they’ve been vetted for stability, security and compliance with UI standards. Purchases and subscriptions are low risk because it’s easy to delete apps and cancel subscriptions, no questions asked. Apple literally invented this paradigm for purchasing software. 

These attributes deliver customers who would not otherwise exist. That is the exact opposite of rent-seeking. 

Well said. The Apple App Store is just as much Apples IP as it’s IOS or M1 Soc processor

Epic doesn’t have to sell in Apples App Store. The store did t exist before Apple spent billions over last 15 years developing it.

no business has a right to Apples IP or it’s customers without following Apples rules

especially not some Chinese commie garbage company like Epic

railroads? I live about 8 blocks from Union Pacific Railroad Headquarter, maybe Sweeney can go in there and tell them how it’s done too? 

ravnorodom said:

Here's final exam for everyone: EPIC is owned by __________ (100pt).

Lol

i mean the fact CCP owned  Epic is messing with America greatest company ? Doesn’t this deserve  an investigation by our FBI or DOJ?