Epic Games Sues Apple

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,680
Sorry, that's not the case. Anyway, here's a synopsis of the decision which sets a bar for the courts consider monopolistic practices from Wikipedia:



Market share of the total user space isn't necessary for there to be a monopoly. This goes back to the company town analogy where a business runs a closed system that includes rent, utilities, services, and pay for its employees. You don't have to own a majority of towns in America to run an illegal monopoly. You can run a town with 10 people and still create an illegal system.

"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers." Apple owns an even bigger share of IOS-based phones; a complete share.

It's not about alternative platforms, and it's not about Epic's other practices.

If it was a monopoly when Microsoft made it hard to use IE alternatives, then it's a monopoly when Apple makes it nearly impossible to use third-party software of any kind without approval.

But there is a key difference you are missing in the Microsoft comparison.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Sorry, that's not the case. Anyway, here's a synopsis of the decision which sets a bar for the courts consider monopolistic practices from Wikipedia:



Market share of the total user space isn't necessary for there to be a monopoly. This goes back to the company town analogy where a business runs a closed system that includes rent, utilities, services, and pay for its employees. You don't have to own a majority of towns in America to run an illegal monopoly. You can run a town with 10 people and still create an illegal system.

"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers." Apple owns an even bigger share of IOS-based phones; a complete share.

It's not about alternative platforms, and it's not about Epic's other practices.

If it was a monopoly when Microsoft made it hard to use IE alternatives, then it's a monopoly when Apple makes it nearly impossible to use third-party software of any kind without approval.

Again, you are reading it wrong. Microsoft had a monopoly. Making it hard to use IE alternatives was abusing the monopoly.
 

Tekara

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
1,970
I don't like Epic, but I'm rooting for them on this one.

Vertically integrated tech like this should be a no go. Just because you make the hardware shouldn't mean that you get 100% say in how consumers can use it. Similarly, I don't want Microsoft to get the idea that because they are no longer a monopoly in the consumer tech space that they can ban third party store fronts like Steam and force all Windows users through the Microsoft Store.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,680
I don't like Epic, but I'm rooting for them on this one.

Vertically integrated tech like this should be a no go. Just because you make the hardware shouldn't mean that you get 100% say in how consumers can use it. Similarly, I don't want Microsoft to get the idea that because they are no longer a monopoly in the consumer tech space that they can ban third party store fronts like Steam and force all Windows users through the Microsoft Store.

Hardware and software and advertised and promoted as being a walled garden, consumers have a plethora of alternative choices if they don't like Apple.

This isn't about what you can do, this is about a company wanting to sidestep fees associated with accessing that ecosystem.
 

Tekara

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
1,970
Hardware and software and advertised and promoted as being a walled garden, consumers have a plethora of alternative choices if they don't like Apple.

This isn't about what you can do, this is about a company wanting to sidestep fees associated with accessing that ecosystem.

Company Housing, Company Healthcare, Company Cafeteria. People don't have to work for a vertically integrated company and yet they are still illegal.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,680
Company Housing, Company Healthcare, Company Cafeteria. People don't have to work for a vertically integrated company and yet they are still illegal.

again, not the same thing, they don't want to pay the store fee. Epic can die in a fire.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
10,307
Hardware and software and advertised and promoted as being a walled garden, consumers have a plethora of alternative choices if they don't like Apple.

You can advertise an illegal product; just because there are legal alternatives, doesn't make the illegal product legal.

they don't want to pay the store fee

They want to open up a store next to the company store. The company says you can't open a store in my town. That's a monopoly, and if previous cases are an indication, a potentially illegal monopoly.

I think the precedent here is pretty clear. The case Epic will have to make is whether or not a smartphone is similar enough to a computer to allow third-party software. Similarly, Apple will have to argue that a smartphone is different enough from a computer to deny third-party software.

But since, and many people have made it abundantly clear, that other smartphone companies allow third-party software on their devices, that the two are similar, if not interchangeably similar, when it comes to using third-party software.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
How does that mean that Apple doesn't and isn't?

It doesn't, it just means you are confused about what a monopoly is, as the post indicated.

The part that pointed out differences that indicates why Microsoft definitely did have a monopoly, and why Apple likely doesn't are:

1: Market Share: Microsoft >90%. Apple < 50%.
2: Viable Alternatives: Microsoft: Basically none. Apple: Multiple Good alternatives.

Basically the monopoly situation between Microsoft in the 1990's and Apple today are almost night and day difference.

Microsoft basically had an absolute stranglehold on the PC market, and PCs where the only way to access the internet. Potentially giving them control of the internet as well as the desktop PC market, if allowed to abuse their monopoly.

Apple only controls the Apple ecosystem. You don't need Apple devices for anything. I've never owned one. Hasn't hampered my ability to do anything.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,545
It doesn't, it just means you are confused about what a monopoly is, as the post indicated.

The part that pointed out differences that indicates why Microsoft definitely did have a monopoly, and why Apple likely doesn't are:

1: Market Share: Microsoft >90%. Apple < 50%.
2: Viable Alternatives: Microsoft: Basically none. Apple: Multiple Good alternatives.

Basically the monopoly situation between Microsoft in the 1990's and Apple today are almost night and day difference.

Microsoft basically had an absolute stranglehold on the PC market, and PCs where the only way to access the internet. Potentially giving them control of the internet as well as the desktop PC market, if allowed to abuse their monopoly.

Apple only controls the Apple ecosystem. You don't need Apple devices for anything. I've never owned one. Hasn't hampered my ability to do anything.

It's amazing how people will confuse control over an ecosystem with a monopoly. By Axman's logic, Google has a monopoly on ads on its search pages because you have to run them through Google's ad systems. Effectively, he's claiming Apple has a monopoly over... its own platform.

This doesn't mean that there aren't issues with Apple's approach, but arguing that it has a monopoly is not the way to go about fixing things. Apple has nowhere near the stranglehold Microsoft did 20 years ago.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
10,307
No, market share has nothing to do with monopolies. Zero. It's about legal or illegal protectionism.

Follow your own logic:

Microsoft basically had an absolute stranglehold on the PC market

Apple has an absolute stranglehold of the iPhone market. That's the first thing here that matters.

and PCs where the only way to access the internet

No, that wasn't the argument against Microsoft. The argument was that they controlled the Windows browser market, and used their position with IE anti-competitively. They did this mainly by making it hard if not impossible to remove IE from Windows. There were other reasons as well, but the same is true for Apple today.

The second thing is that here Apple completely controls not just the iPhone browser market, they control the entire app ecosystem, and they're charging people for access to boot. They are totally anti-competitive toward all third-party developers.

By Axman's logic, Google has a monopoly on ads on its search pages because you have to run them through Google's ad systems.

That is literally the main argument for Google holding a monopoly...among others that belong in a different thread.
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,258
Well, Firefox (and other browsers) do exist on iOS, but Apple forces them to use WebKIt. So they are basically just wrappers around Safari.
I think he means you can’t set a default browser, but that will finally change in iOS 14.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,653
LMFAO.

That's rich.

The company that bribes game studios with millions of dollars to be the exclusive outlet for their titles is suing someone else for noncompetitive practices.

They should sue themselves.

They fund the studios with the agreement that they get exclusive access for a specified time. That is not bribing.... they are literally paying the salaries of the people that work at the game studios.

If they didn't have that agreement, how many studios would take the funding and then never even offer the game on the Epic Game Store?

It is the only logical way to set things up. Epic needs to get their investments back AND also make money on top of that. This is economics 101.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,680
No, market share has nothing to do with monopolies. Zero. It's about legal or illegal protectionism.

Follow your own logic:



Apple has an absolute stranglehold of the iPhone market. That's the first thing here that matters.



No, that wasn't the argument against Microsoft. The argument was that they controlled the Windows browser market, and used their position with IE anti-competitively. They did this mainly by making it hard if not impossible to remove IE from Windows. There were other reasons as well, but the same is true for Apple today.

The second thing is that here Apple completely controls not just the iPhone browser market, they control the entire app ecosystem, and they're charging people for access to boot. They are totally anti-competitive toward all third-party developers.



That is literally the main argument for Google holding a monopoly...among others that belong in a different thread.


Well I think you will be proven incorrect, but time will tell.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
No, market share has nothing to do with monopolies. Zero. It's about legal or illegal protectionism.

Market share is critical. You can't control a market, without market share.

If Microsoft had 10% of the PC market market in the 1990s, then it's attempt to lock in IE, would not have mattered. It would have been irrelevant, because the other 90% of the market wouldn't be locked in. There would be lots of viable alternatives.

It's the answer the seemingly eternal question of why Apple can lock in Safari on iPhone.

I find it hilarious that I have seen that exact example brought for over a decade about the Apple Browser on iPhone. I have probably seen a variation on this over a hundred times over the years:

https://www.quora.com/If-Microsofts...-to-force-people-to-use-Safari-on-iOS-devices

I wonder why some people still don't get that a monopoly is about control a critical mass of the market.

Microsoft clearly held a monopoly position in the PC Market. That isn't a problem.

But when you are in a monopoly position you with garner more scrutiny because monopoly power is open to abuse.

If you have no monopoly power, it's hard to abuse.


Apple has an absolute stranglehold of the iPhone market. That's the first thing here that matters.

Sure, and they had a monopoly on Macintosh computer market in the 1990's, and still do. :rolleyes:

A monopoly over ones own proprietary product is meaningless, unless you also happen to have dominant market share in products of that general type, so you have monopoly on products of that type.

The iPhone is a Smartphone, and they have less than half that market, and there are vibrant alternative ecosystem.

If Android had never been, and Apple now had 90% of the Smartphone markets, you can be certain, things would be VERY different. Apple would be treading much more carefully, and probably would have had some business practices altered by government decree.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,344
If Apple is so innovative and provides such a great product, surely they can't be afraid of some competition? Or do they know they maybe suck but it doesn't matter when there are no alternatives on iOS?

That being said, I support their right to rape their customers.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,490
Microsoft is still doing it.

I've seen ads for Edge inside the Start Menu, as well as reinstalling apps (like Skype) I have uninstalled many times.

I guess no one cares anymore.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,344
Microsoft is still doing it.

I've seen ads for Edge inside the Start Menu, as well as reinstalling apps (like Skype) I have uninstalled many times.

I guess no one cares anymore.
There's only so much shit in Windows 10 one can get upset about. At one point you just give up and accept it's cancer.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,109
If Apple is so innovative and provides such a great product, surely they can't be afraid of some competition? Or do they know they maybe suck but it doesn't matter when there are no alternatives on iOS?

That being said, I support their right to rape their customers.
Other marketplaces are effectively sideloading. A great benefit to the user base of iOS comes from all of the protections that the App Store gives. Which is one of the reasons why there is less mal-ware and few if any junk apps.
On balance the great advantage to Android is you can do anything. But that also means everyone else can do anything. Google has recognized this problem and over the past 5 years or so has effectively started to close a lot of the loop holes (most Android phones at this point don't allow access to the Bootloader anymore as an example). But that means a more closed system.

There is no perfect solution. On a desktop I'm more willing to spend the time and manage a bunch of software, but personally I want my phone to get out of my way and just work. If your phone is your hobby and you want to manage another device then Android makes a lot of sense.
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
I think the precedent here is pretty clear. The case Epic will have to make is whether or not a smartphone is similar enough to a computer to allow third-party software. Similarly, Apple will have to argue that a smartphone is different enough from a computer to deny third-party software.
Apple already allows third party software, they have tens of thousands of third party apps available. If all the apps were to be considered "first party" they would have to be owned by Apple.



They fund the studios with the agreement that they get exclusive access for a specified time. That is not bribing.... they are literally paying the salaries of the people that work at the game studios.
Nope. That is not the agreement Epic gives out. The funds are in no way, shape, or form for development use of a game. The deal is specifically that the game is to be sold only through Epic Game Store for a specific time period and in return, Epic will front the company a guaranteed $2 million+ in game sales (The amount seeming to be based on the studio making the game and expected sales numbers). The game must be fully completed and up for release to get the money, it is not for the development phase. Also the game does not make any money for sales on Epic Game Store up to that first 2 million or whatever the amount agreed upon was, because the publisher already received that in advance. Once the company breaks that 2 million in sales mark then they start getting profit from sales again. If the game never makes it to the 2 million Dollar mark in sales, Epic forgives any debt owed and the publisher keeps the money regardless. So Epic is saying we will give you $2,000,000 up front at release if you only sell your game in our system for a year.
 
Last edited:

sphinx99

Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
943
Hardforum has a monopoly over forum software and methodologies used make posts. This hardforum walled garden is illegally forcing us to interact with its services only in the way they allow. This is so unacceptable. I’m suing!
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,344
Other marketplaces are effectively sideloading. A great benefit to the user base of iOS comes from all of the protections that the App Store gives. Which is one of the reasons why there is less mal-ware and few if any junk apps.
On balance the great advantage to Android is you can do anything. But that also means everyone else can do anything. Google has recognized this problem and over the past 5 years or so has effectively started to close a lot of the loop holes (most Android phones at this point don't allow access to the Bootloader anymore as an example). But that means a more closed system.

There is no perfect solution. On a desktop I'm more willing to spend the time and manage a bunch of software, but personally I want my phone to get out of my way and just work. If your phone is your hobby and you want to manage another device then Android makes a lot of sense.
Why couldn't there be a controlled official store ecosystem and free choice at the same time? Why are people so eager to have corporations and governments babysit their entire lives? What the hell happened to personal responsibility?
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
3,735
The mobile application market is headed for a massive reckoning regardless of these theatrics. Lawmakers have started to pay attention to Apple and Google, especially Apple.

It will be really interesting to see how this plays out given the mounting pressure on Apple and to a lesser extent Google.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,110
They fund the studios with the agreement that they get exclusive access for a specified time. That is not bribing.... they are literally paying the salaries of the people that work at the game studios.

If they didn't have that agreement, how many studios would take the funding and then never even offer the game on the Epic Game Store?

It is the only logical way to set things up. Epic needs to get their investments back AND also make money on top of that. This is economics 101.

They are paying large sums of money in order to reduce consumer choice in a way that helps themselves.

That is the very definition of anticompetitive practices. Just because Epic is/was trying to break into a market with larger competitors doesn't make it right.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,109
Why couldn't there be a controlled official store ecosystem and free choice at the same time?
Again, because that opens a security door. If everything is forced through the app store then it's not possible to side load software through any other means or method. If there is another means or method, then that means there is another means or method. That's intentionally a circular sentence.

Why are people so eager to have corporations and governments babysit their entire lives? What the hell happened to personal responsibility?
Well first off, if you want Androids open system you're welcome to use it. But this isn't a matter of babysitting per se, but it is certainly a matter of convenience and definitely a method of preventing attacks that are obviously and clearly preventable by having a closed system.

The other major component you're likely not getting is that most people don't have any understanding of their own personal security when it comes to digital devices. Your solution is "get gud". But the reality is then you have greater than 50% of the population open to exploits which could range from theft of personal information all the way to banking information. Again if you want to be responsible for making sure you never have rogue software running on your phone, higher chances of viruses and bot-nets, and endless ability to do whatever you want on a phone then there is a system already available to you.

Edit: in case it’s not clear, I don’t want Apple to be like Android. And most other Apple users don’t either. Android is already doing Android. We don’t need more of the same. Choice in the market is far more valuable in terms of alternatives rather than just the same systems over and over from different providers.
 
Last edited:

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
10,307
Market share is critical. You can't control a market, without market share.

I wonder why some people still don't get that a monopoly is about control a critical mass of the market.

They control 100 percent of the market for software on their devices. That is a critical mass. They don't have to own the entire smartphone market to commit unfair business practices. They have over 1.5 billion users. That's plenty of room for abuse. Especially since they also control the taxes and payments.

Sure, and they had a monopoly on Macintosh computer market in the 1990's, and still do.

The question is whether or not that is an innocent or nefarious monopoly. Something as simple as blocking free software that is known to work on their phone because of the walled garden approach could pretty easily be seen as anti-competitive behavior. And it's not like they lock it on Macs. There are no technical reasons to prevent this, only financial reasons.

They are paying large sums of money in order to reduce consumer choice in a way that helps themselves.

Licensing is not anti-competition, it's business. If I write a book and three publishers would like to sell it, I can pick the one I want to work with.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
22,521
"funding" a game developer publisher with a guaranteed million dollars but requiring the game must be exclusive to their platform is screwing with the market far more severely than Valve has ever done. That is not trying to break a monopoly through being better than the competition, it is straight up bribery.
Wrong. Valve ushered in the age of always online drm. That is far more damaging.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
They control 100 percent of the market for software on their devices. That is a critical mass. They don't have to own the entire smartphone market to commit unfair business practices. They have over 1.5 billion users. That's plenty of room for abuse. Especially since they also control the taxes and payments.

I never said they needed 100%. Again, critical mass of your own product is meaningless.

Having 100% control of Marlboro Cigarettes is irrelevant. But when American Tobacco, was broken up by the Government it sold over 90% of ALL cigarettes.

Having 100% control Exxon Oil and it's ecosystem is irrelevant, But when Standard Oil controlled over 90% of US oil refining, it was target for anti-trust and was broken up.

In the 1990's Apple 100% control of Apple computers, and no one cared, but Microsoft had over 90% and faced intense scrutiny and was brought to court. A lot of people actually wanted Microsoft broken up

Seeing any patterns? Note when the US government steps in for monopoly issues it when someone has cornered the wider market of a type of product, not some kind of knucklehead, cornered the market in their own unique product.

If Microsoft had 10% of the PC market in the 1990's there wouldn't have been a trial.

The way you duck all the responses that tell you this, shows that you know this to be true, have no argument against it, so you just keep ducking it. Thus arguing in bad faith.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,430
Apple is going to have a hard case to prove in court... that is the bottom line. Monopoly or not. For years courts have held that if you create a mass market general compute operating system, you can not deny third party software. This is case law as old as MS-DOS.

Apple... and to a lesser extent Google have operated like smartphones are not general compute platforms and are instead computing consumer devices without a generally open operating system. Apple is going to be forced in court to prove the iOS is not a general use operating system. If they can't there going to be forced to allow side loading. The only reason it hasn't happend so far is Apple is stupid rich... and no one has been willing to take them to court, and the US government is a little chicken shit and more importantly love their big US tech monopolies as the alternative is probably being overrun by smaller potentially non US players.

Love or hate Epic... if they stick with their case... and don't tap out when Apple at some point says just for you Epic 15% on fortnight sales. They will likely win 4-5 years from now. I am pretty sure Epic is banking on the US and EU governments to step in and force Apple to open their OS to third party software, and which point they drop the case, and launch a Epic store iOS version.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
10,307
I never said they needed 100%. Again, critical mass of your own product is meaningless.
No, it's not. Because most people don't own two or three cell phones in order to get full access to the market of cell phone apps. Having an alternative isn't the same as fair business.

Having 100% control of Marlboro Cigarettes is irrelevant. But when American Tobacco, was broken up by the Government it sold over 90% of ALL cigarettes.

Having 100% control Exxon Oil and it's ecosystem is irrelevant, But when Standard Oil controlled over 90% it was target for anti-trust and was broken up.
You don't have to have a dominating market share in order to violate antitrust laws. I don't know why you keep coming back to that. Case in point, Apple is facing 10 counts of antitrust laws violations.

If Microsoft had 10% of the PC market in the 1990's there wouldn't have been a trial.
Going back to Microsoft, they were highlighted as being the main OS for Intel processors, but at the time, the biggest chip maker was, IIRC, Texas Instruments. So they were not the de-facto OS, but they were the de-facto OS for IE users and its x86 alternatives.

It doesn't even have to be a per-se violation, it can be a reasonable violation, and the claimant/plaintiff can even win if they can prove injury. Here, if Epic proves that Apple's rules have damaged their Fortnite income, a court may side on their behalf.

The way you duck all the responses that tell you this, shows that you know this to be true, have no argument against it, so you just keep ducking it. Thus arguing in bad faith.
I think these replies have shown I'm not ducking anything.

Love or hate Epic...
They're not the tech Hustler we need, but they're the tech Hustler we want.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,430
In the 1990's Apple 100% control of Apple computers, and no one cared, but Microsoft had over 90% and faced intense scrutiny and was brought to court. A lot of people actually wanted Microsoft broken up

You are forgetting why MS was being looked at for potential break up. Vertical Integration. its not just that they controlled the majority share operating system. Its that they where also trying to control segments of software that ran on top of the operating system. They also tried to monopolize office software and then internet browsing software. They did that by making it as hard as possible for third party providers in those markets to compete. Which is something you can easily do when you control the operating system. Apple of the day was not doing any of that.... they sold other Apple software but no third parties where complaining Apple was holding them back or slowing down their software with updates that changed operating features, or changing default software choices without user interaction, or running safety warnings when users ran third party programs. As well as other dirty tricks. MS was found guilty of doing those things... and narrowly escaped being broken up for it.

Apple are also likely to be facing suits from Microsoft ironically and Amazon over store denials. According to 30+ years of case law if you have a general compute operating system it really doesn't matter what your Market share is third party software companies are protected legally if they want to produce software for that platform.

The Mobile segment has evolved... they not just one off device anymore, they are a computing platform. With a unified operating system. The only reason the walled garden has been legal so far is because no one has really challenged Apple in court on it.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,490
Love or hate Epic... if they stick with their case... and don't tap out when Apple at some point says just for you Epic 15% on fortnight sales. They will likely win 4-5 years from now. I am pretty sure Epic is banking on the US and EU governments to step in and force Apple to open their OS to third party software, and which point they drop the case, and launch a Epic store iOS version.
I think Epic, while somewhat self-serving, may end up making a case that benefits the consumer. Obviously the end goal is having an alternate shop on iOS/Android, and launching the Epic Store on mobile may be where they are heading.

Honestly, that is why I love PC. You can download mods, get all sorts of software, free or paid, hack your games if you like, lots of choices for stores, pick your own hardware and get exactly what you want.

I guess Android is about as good as we're going to get, and all the open-source/libre type phone projects never seem to get off the ground. So we are kind of stuck in this two horse race, for better or worse.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,430
I think Epic, while somewhat self-serving, may end up making a case that benefits the consumer. Obviously the end goal is having an alternate shop on iOS/Android, and launching the Epic Store on mobile may be where they are heading.

Honestly, that is why I love PC. You can download mods, get all sorts of software, free or paid, hack your games if you like, lots of choices for stores, pick your own hardware and get exactly what you want.

I guess Android is about as good as we're going to get, and all the open-source/libre type phone projects never seem to get off the ground. So we are kind of stuck in this two horse race, for better or worse.

Ya I was hoping one of the open source phone projects would take off and get some hardware support... but I guess the problem ends up being cell carriers. Think your right Android is as close as we will get... hardware companies can lock it down enough to keep carriers happy, but at least its mostly open out of the box.

Apple I am sure will be forced to go the same way as android and allow side loading... and probably at that point will be pretty much forced to look at their developer relations in terms of payments and margins on in app stuff. Android at least developers can offer a third party payment option. I get the argument that on Apple you don't have to worry about shady payment schemes, but security is not Apples motivating factor is it. :) Will be interesting to see where this case goes, and if MS jumps in with their own suit.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
10,307
Will be interesting to see where this case goes, and if MS jumps in with their own suit.

Honestly? I kind of expect Apple to try to settle with Epic, because they're going for a unified architecture across platforms in a couple of years. At that point, they'll need to be ready for real third-party software, not this 2.5-party stuff.

I'll be more interested to see if Epic pushes now, because they are going for a cross-platform, cross-service arrangement with other publishers/hosts. If they settle, that's money now. If they push, that could be a lot of deals in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
D

Deleted member 243478

Guest
I didn't mean anyone has to agree, I just feel taking a 30% cut for almost no work (let's be honest, buying digital currency isn't really doing much work for apple). Steam is distributing the game, but how much does steam take from in game transaction? It's 15% and then it's not even required just offered. This is the difference, it's optional and it's 1/2 the cost. So I disagree with your assessment of 30% is the norm. Steam is the largest platform and it's 1/2 the cost with you having the option to use it or not. Heck steam will happily install Ubisoft launcher/platform from their store. Apple forbids competition and locks you into everything. I don't know if it would be proven legal or not, just Apple charging you more with fewer (zero) options.

For profit sure, so is every business, but that doesn't mean you can just do what you want and nobody can/will question your ethics or market lock out tactics. Just as I did not support the Nvidia GPP, or Microsoft forcing IE, or Intel paying vendors to not use AMD. Just because apple does something doesn't mean I have to agree and support it, same as any other company.
All this said, I don't think Epic is totally drama free either and does their own fair share of shady stuff, but if we accept it as the norm, we (consumers) are the ones that lose.

It is hardly no work, Apple are managing all the payment processing / subscriptions etc, managing the app store infrastructure and app deployment to devices. They also put a lot of work into inspecting code and testing apps in detail to ensure they meet the appstore guidelines and aren’t hiding malware etc...

The internet explorer analogy is wrong... with Windows you are just buying a piece of software to run on your own hardware. With Apple you are buying an end user product blending hardware and software that are built together as a system.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,653
They are paying large sums of money in order to reduce consumer choice in a way that helps themselves.

That is the very definition of anticompetitive practices. Just because Epic is/was trying to break into a market with larger competitors doesn't make it right.

So go after Sony and MS for doing the same thing with their consoles.

And what about TV shows?

What about streaming services? Most shows are exclusively on one streaming service. Whoever pays the studio the most gets the show on their service.

What about Disney who now has all their stuff on their own streaming service and has pulled everything Disney from all other streaming services?

What about you? What if some other company wanted to hire you but they wanted to pay you a lot less and then claimed the company you are working for was being anti-competitive?

Or how about a company offering you much higher pay then you are getting now? Would you leave for the increase in pay or would you stay at your current job because the company wanting to hire you away was "being anti-competitive" ?
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,490
Epic is funding indies, though. I follow a lot of devs on Twitter, and I've seen some of the comments (though, of course, not everyone can talk about hard numbers).

But for every huge AAA title like Control or Metro, you probably have 5 smaller indie studios that really did need the money to survive.

Epic has also been supporting indie and open-source projects financially, in many cases without strings attached. For example the open-source Godot engine got a $250,000 grant earlier this year.

You can see some of the other grant receivers here, in total they dished out over $42 million dollars.

https://venturebeat.com/2020/07/24/epic-games-awards-more-than-42-million-in-grants-for-developers/
 
D

Deleted member 243478

Guest
Epic is funding indies, though. I follow a lot of devs on Twitter, and I've seen some of the comments (though, of course, not everyone can talk about hard numbers).

But for every huge AAA title like Control or Metro, you probably have 5 smaller indie studios that really did need the money to survive.

Epic has also been supporting indie and open-source projects financially, in many cases without strings attached. For example the open-source Godot engine got a $250,000 grant earlier this year.

You can see some of the other grant receivers here, in total they dished out over $42 million dollars.

https://venturebeat.com/2020/07/24/epic-games-awards-more-than-42-million-in-grants-for-developers/

yes and Apple charges no fees to developers who submit free apps also... god forbid Apple gets paid also when a developer makes money on an app through their platforms...
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,430
It is hardly no work, Apple are managing all the payment processing / subscriptions etc, managing the app store infrastructure and app deployment to devices. They also put a lot of work into inspecting code and testing apps in detail to ensure they meet the appstore guidelines and aren’t hiding malware etc...

The internet explorer analogy is wrong... with Windows you are just buying a piece of software to run on your own hardware. With Apple you are buying an end user product blending hardware and software that are built together as a system.

So MS would be ok to lock down all surface hardware then right ?
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,430
yes and Apple charges no fees to developers who submit free apps also... god forbid Apple gets paid also when a developer makes money on an app through their platforms...

There in lies the problem... its time to stop calling mobile operating systems, platforms. lol

Microsoft doesn't get to call windows a platform. Apple likewise doesn't get to call MacOS a platform. If Apple tried what they do with iOS with MacOS.... why would that be ok ? If Microsoft decided tomorrow to update all surface hardware with a third party software lockout, I guess that would be ok its their device their platform right.

Its time for everyone to admit that iOS and android are not consumer device platforms... they are general compute computer operating systems. Each new device runs the same operating system, the software you buy for one iOS device works on another iOS device. The range of software that runs on them is vast and no doubt falls under the general compute heading. We aren't talking about "apps" anymore.... iOS devices run software just like any other computer does.
 
Top