anome

johnbear said:

nytesky said:

The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony have put a lot of R&D and marketing into iOS, Android, Xbox and Playstation. If Epic wants to sell direct to the consumer, they should make their own hardware. They want to leech off Apple and Google, but are willing to pay 30% to Microsoft and Sony (for now). 

The shoplifting analogy that Apple uses isn't very good. It is more like Epic setting up shop and selling things inside an Apple Store without paying any rent; Epic cries in the store that they made the products they are selling not Apple, so Apple should let them stay there for free. 

Remember before Apple invented this lucrative AppStore scam, games and software were downloaded and paid directly to the developer. Then Google & Microsoft followed as the service is very lucrative. The gov needs to step in to protect the consumers and developers from these draconian anticompetitive and monopolistic practices. 

On the other hand Epic acted out of desperation and not in a very wise and strategic manner. 

Actually - no. Before Apple came up with the App Store, developers actually had to sell their games through a publisher, who took a hell of a lot more than 30%. The App Store was seen by most developers as a better deal.

Some developers did do direct sales, but that meant they had to do, and pay for, the distribution, delivery, marketing, and financial transactions themselves. I know some people who did it with shareware and the like. The difference in cost (and profit) of their shareware version, and the boxed version put together for them by a distributor was substantial.

With the App Store, Apple was offering to do all of that for them in return for a mere 30% as opposed to most publishing companies taking ~80%. The App Store was a way that developers could bypass publishers, resulting in lower costs, and, theoretically, higher profits for development.

Now, what Epic is doing, is working as a publisher and distributor. True, they have developed their own games, but they also sell games from other developers. How much does Rockstar pay them for sales of GTA or Red Dead Redemption through the Epic Games Store? (Serious question, I'd like to know.) We know how much they have to pay Sony and MS for access to the Playstation and XBox marketplaces (30% - what a coincidence), but they're not complaining about that.

It's really hard to see how any of this has to do with stifling innovation, rather than impacting Epic's profit margin.

I used to joke that MS's R&D department was just a couple of guys with a subscription to MacWorld, and it's this kind of shit that made it funny.

No Thunderbolt out is a bit of a nuisance. Also kind of low on ports.

Seriously wondering how this will affect the availability of content that's currently available through non-CBS options in overseas markets. For instance, the new [i]Star Trek: Discovery[/i] on Netflix, and [i]Picard[/i] on Amazon Prime. Will they be moved to Paramount+ once it's available here?

Also, what is the fate of 10 All Access, the local branding of CBS All Access once they bought the Ten Network a few years back? For that matter, what is the fate of the Ten Network, if they manage to get a decent amount of traction for the streaming service?

Beats said:

Psh. Typical woman in business who thinks she is assertive, but she's just pushy.

Had she been a man this would be laughed at. Since it's a female she may win.

Psh. Typical man on an internet message board who thinks he's clever, but is just another sad asshole repeating misogynist tripe.

I'm almost certain had the plaintiff been a man, no-one would have referred to them as "Typical man in business..." yada yada.

The thing is the statement is definitely misogynistic, and someone managing contracts for Apple should be smart enough not to say that sort of thing out loud, particularly to the husband of the person they're talking about. And that's my issue with the whole thing: why would an executive at Tim Cook's Apple, which is constantly being lambasted by commenters on this very board for "political correctness gone mad" and "prioritising demographics over ability", have actually said that?

I see this playing out one of two ways. If they can produce correspondence with that exact wording in it, they will win. If it wasn't written correspondence, or if the wording is different to what is given above, or there is some kind of context that might shift the meaning (hard to see what it would be, though), there will be a long court case arguing over the actual meaning of what was said.

As for the executive, I don't know if he has much of a future with Apple. Unless, as stated above, it can be proved that he didn't actually say what is alleged, he might be OK. But if he actually said that, I don't see him being employed by Apple for much longer. Or at the very least, he will spend a lot of time in HR training courses.