Epic Games Sues Apple

sboucher said:
This goes much deeper than just Epic's whining about Apple taking a huge cut. Apple is blocking apps for no other reason than it competes with their own products or services.

Remember when Microsoft wasn't even allowed to bundle their own fucking internet browser with windows anymore? It baffles my mind why Apple continues to get away with all the anticompetitive shit they do.
Click to expand...
Microsoft and Google cant do that because they are like 80+% of the market they are the major player. Apple is something like 15% of the mobile market and 8% of the desktop/laptop one. Apple makes its market by catering to the small and distinct group that want their product even though there are better cheaper alternatives. They get to play by a different rule book because they aren’t in any majority position except for their income.

Note:
I posted this late and should clarify by better I mean in some aspect or another. Camera, Speakers, Microphones, that sort of stuff. I will say as nice as many Androids are I would be hard pressed to put any of them in a straight head to head with their competing iPhone and expect them to come out on top.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, get the government involved, court system and lawyers -> only good things will happen now :oops:

If you make hardware, do you have the right to lock it with your software? Reminds me of John Dear locking their tractors with software preventing user repairs. That did not work well with John Dear. If related or not, no clue. The question is do you own the hardware after you bought it? If so do you have a right to put what ever software on it for your needs, with consequence and the risk will then be yours. For example Apple not able to lock their hardware with iOS but allow other OS's such as Android or others to be used on it? Then again this would go for virtually anything in the digital age from consoles, TVs etc. I like the idea that hey, if I own my hardware, I can do what ever I want with it, even use it for target practice -> as long as I am not directly hurting anyone. In other words, like a PC, I want to be able to stick what ever software I want on it which in Apples's case I may decide iOS. Not sure how this will play out in the courts, because this will not be just an Apple thing but virtually anything digital with a lock-down ecosystem.
 
ChadD said:
So MS would be ok to lock down all surface hardware then right ?
Click to expand...

If they wanted to they could but then no one would but them... Windows is not bespoke software.


ChadD said:
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.
Click to expand...

iOS is a platform because Apple is supplying everything end to end from appstore, software, hardware and infrastructure. Windows is not an platform, it’s an operating system that runs on many things...
 
Lakados said:
Microsoft and Google cant do that because they are like 80+% of the market they are the major player. Apple is something like 15% of the mobile market and 8% of the desktop/laptop one. Apple makes its market by catering to the small and distinct group that want their product even though there are better cheaper alternatives. They get to play by a different rule book because they aren’t in any majority position except for their income.
Click to expand...

What you define as better is an opinion not fact.
 
ChadD said:
So MS would be ok to lock down all surface hardware then right ?
Click to expand...
They essentially did with their Surface RT. And no, generally it isn't a problem. It's only an issue when being on the platform isn't fair or equitable.

The only place where antitrust is going to find a wedge is specifically in the matter of if Apple is showing favor to its own Apps and designing apps that are similar to third party apps and "taking those devs money away". But essentially everyone has the same rules on the App store and Apple has been fairly neutral across the board with how its handled everything.

ChadD said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is... a leap. Even as good as the iPad Pro is as an example, it struggles at doing a lot of general computing tasks.

Lakados said:
Apple makes its market by catering to the small and distinct group that want their product even though there are better cheaper alternatives.
Click to expand...
I'd like to hear your definitions on this. Cheaper certainly. Better? That's up for some level of debate.
Both Exynos and Snapdragon haven't been able to keep up with A series of processors in several years. It's to the point where Snapdragon can't even win niche benchmarks to show an edge. So if faster means better, then Apple already wins there.

The rest of the phone hardware are generally equal, although Apple for a long time has been a leader in camera technology. And Android's versions of FaceID are a poor facsimile compared to its dot projector technology that actually 3d maps a face.

Moving to desktops and laptops is also another subject. But the long and the short is, you can find cheaper, but for the long list of specific components found in a Macbook Pro or iMac or Mac Pro - to get something of truly equivalent value would cost in the same ballpark.
This is when accounting for things like battery life, display and screen quality/color gamut/etc, size, weight, in addition to of course "raw specs". In the case of the iMac the 5k display alone would cost $1300 to buy separately. And the Mac Pro is roughly the same cost as a workstation from Dell or HP, save for the RAM upgrades which you could do yourself. And yes, size/weight/battery life counts in all arguments even if those are not components you care about, it's a major reason why Apple users use their systems. And things that aren't of similar weight/size/battery life or display quality aren't functionally equivalent.

noko said:
I like the idea that hey, if I own my hardware, I can do what ever I want with it, even use it for target practice -> as long as I am not directly hurting anyone. In other words, like a PC, I want to be able to stick what ever software I want on it which in Apples's case I may decide iOS.
Click to expand...
You can already do this. And you have been able to do so since the beginning of iOS. It's called jailbreaking. You have the choice with the hardware in your hands to do whatever you want. So if you want to exploit your device and root it so you can run unsigned software, you have the freedom to do so. But you can't fault Apple for plugging those holes with every update, because all access to being able to do that is a security issue. But you're welcome to buy older hardware or devices with older versions of iOS and do whatever you want.
Yes, you can shotgun your iPhone if you want.

Even if you "disagree" that we're saying "is the same thing" it functionally is. Apple doesn't have the need or the want to stop you from doing this and there have been times that the "jailbreak store" boomed. But so is your risk of malware; as unless you're doing all the coding yourself you have no idea what is safe what isn't as literally none of the code will be signed. And the only way to get signed code is to have a third party go through all of it that you actually trust, and that essentially is what the App Store is. A first party vendor that actually analyzes code for malicious behavior and prevents it from being executed on your device - that also hosts and pushes all your software for you. And for that privilege they want a cut. But if your app is free then they even do those things for said devs for free.

And finally if you want to run whatever you want to run on your iPhone you can more or less literally do that too. Just enable developer mode on your Phone and you can run all the xCode you want to your hearts content. And no one will stop you. So enjoy that - we're dealing with the [H] - you should be totally fine just coding all your own software in order to whatever you want.

======

On topic there is an opinion piece on IGN: https://www.ign.com/articles/opinion-epic-is-weaponizing-fortnite-fans-against-apple-google
And it shows all the digital marketplace percentages. Most are 30%. Apple charging the same amount of money as any other store front (including Google and Amazon) is going to make it harder to show that they are using their position abusively. Especially, again, considering that they are effectively making their devices secure - that they go through all the code. And have for the most part been entirely neutral in terms of how they enforce policy.
 
Last edited:
aokman said:
What you define as better is an opinion not fact.
Click to expand...
Can’t deny that alternatives exist that beat Apple in some aspect or another. The Android market is based around customizability, Apple sets themselves apart by offering an ecosystem, frankly I prefer the Apple take on high function and polish with the walled garden than the Android smorgasbord of choice but to each their own. But Apple gets to avoid the laws that are placed on monopolies because they aren’t one, their competitors have a far larger market share so by definition Apple isn’t one. They are just far more profitable.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
They essentially did with their Surface RT. And no, generally it isn't a problem. It's only an issue when being on the platform isn't fair or equitable.

The only place where antitrust is going to find a wedge is specifically in the matter of if Apple is showing favor to its own Apps and designing apps that are similar to third party apps and "taking those devs money away". But essentially everyone has the same rules on the App store and Apple has been fairly neutral across the board with how its handled everything.


This is... a leap. Even as good as the iPad Pro is as an example, it struggles at doing a lot of general computing tasks.


I'd like to hear your definitions on this. Cheaper certainly. Better? That's up for some level of debate.
Both Exynos and Snapdragon haven't been able to keep up with A series of processors in several years. It's to the point where Snapdragon can't even win niche benchmarks to show an edge. So if faster means better, then Apple already wins there.

The rest of the phone hardware are generally equal, although Apple for a long time has been a leader in camera technology. And Android's versions of FaceID are a poor facsimile compared to its dot projector technology that actually 3d maps a face.

Moving to desktops and laptops is also another subject. But the long and the short is, you can find cheaper, but for the long list of specific components found in a Macbook Pro or iMac or Mac Pro - to get something of truly equivalent value would cost in the same ballpark.
This is when accounting for things like battery life, display and screen quality/color gamut/etc, size, weight, in addition to of course "raw specs". In the case of the iMac the 5k display alone would cost $1300 to buy separately. And the Mac Pro is roughly the same cost as a workstation from Dell or HP, save for the RAM upgrades which you could do yourself. And yes, size/weight/battery life counts in all arguments even if those are not components you care about, it's a major reason why Apple users use their systems. And things that aren't of similar weight/size/battery life or display quality aren't functionally equivalent.


You can already do this. And you have been able to do so since the beginning of iOS. It's called jailbreaking. You have the choice with the hardware in your hands to do whatever you want. So if you want to exploit your device and root it so you can run unsigned software, you have the freedom to do so. But you can't fault Apple for plugging those holes with every update, because all access to being able to do that is a security issue. But you're welcome to buy older hardware or devices with older versions of iOS and do whatever you want.
Yes, you can shotgun your iPhone if you want.

Even if you "disagree" that we're saying "is the same thing" it functionally is. Apple doesn't have the need or the want to stop you from doing this and there have been times that the "jailbreak store" boomed. But so is your risk of malware; as unless you're doing all the coding yourself you have no idea what is safe what isn't as literally none of the code will be signed. And the only way to get signed code is to have a third party go through all of it that you actually trust, and that essentially is what the App Store is. A first party vendor that actually analysis code for malicious behavior and prevents it from being executed on your system - that also hosts and pushes all your software for you. And for that privilege they want a cut. But if your app is free then they even do those things for said devs for free.

And finally if you want to run whatever you want to run on your iPhone you can more or less literally do that too. Just enable developer mode on your Phone and you can run all the xCode you want to your hearts content. And no one will stop you. So enjoy that - knowing that essentially all of these complaints are FUD. We're dealing with the [H] - you should be totally fine just coding all your own software in order to whatever you want.

======

On topic there is an opinion piece on IGN: https://www.ign.com/articles/opinion-epic-is-weaponizing-fortnite-fans-against-apple-google
And it shows all the digital marketplace percentages. Most are 30%. Apple charging the same amount of money as any other store front (including Google and Amazon) is going to make it harder to show that they are using their position abusively. Especially, again, considering that they are effectively making their devices secure - that they go through all the code. And have for the most part been entirely neutral in terms of how they enforce policy.
Click to expand...
When I said better I meant in some aspect or another not as an overall sense. Like better built in speakers, or a better microphone, or a quality DAC, higher end camera, that sort of stuff. There are lots of Android phones that have some parts that are better, but in terms of a complete package Apple crushes it. I’d be hard pressed to grab any Android device and put it up against an iPhone for a straight head to head and expect the Android to come out on top overall.
 
Lakados said:
Can’t deny that alternatives exist that beat Apple in some aspect or another. The Android market is based around customizability, Apple sets themselves apart by offering an ecosystem, frankly I prefer the Apple take on high function and polish with the walled garden than the Android smorgasbord of choice but to each their own. But Apple gets to avoid the laws that are placed on monopolies because they aren’t one, their competitors have a far larger market share so by definition Apple isn’t one. They are just far more profitable.
Click to expand...

Depends what you value... There is no Android handset that beats Apple in pure processor performance, device security, software optimisation or how long the device is supported for.
 
aokman said:
Depends what you value... There is no Android handset that beats Apple in pure processor performance, device security, software optimisation or how long the device is supported for.
Click to expand...
Nope not at all, that stuff costs money and the margins are too slim on Android to do that and still make a profit.

Apples ecosystem is one of the reasons why despite the higher initial costs their TCO ends up inline with or ahead of many much cheaper alternatives over a devices lifetime.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...
All this is saying is people are stupid and I want corporations to babysit them. This isn't about Apple losing control of their store, this is Apple selling a car and deciding which roads you're allowed to drive on. Sure, they should be able to do that, but lets not pretend it's anything but treating the customer as a baby. And allowing other stores or sideloading still wouldn't make it anything close to Android and its problems.
 
Meeho said:
All this is saying is people are stupid and I want corporations to babysit them. This isn't about Apple losing control of their store, this is Apple selling a car and deciding which roads you're allowed to drive on. Sure, they should be able to do that, but lets not pretend it's anything but treating the customer as a baby. And allowing other stores or sideloading still wouldn't make it anything close to Android and its problems.
Click to expand...
Um no. This is like Apple making the car and not giving you access to the ECU. Your expectation that people should be able to just know everything about security is like expecting people to know everything about how to maintain their car and fix it. Which by the way, they don't. It's functionally no different. It may perplex you that people don't know how email works. But guess what, if I even talked about advancing timings and increasing octane or anything about forced induction non-car people's heads would spin just the same as non-computer people with tech issues. This is putting aside any discussion about "basic" car maintenance.
I could go down the list of "basic" things people don't know how to do. Most can't build houses. They don't know anything about the electrical in their house. They know nothing about plumbing. They can't reupolster furniture. They can't sew or fix clothes or make clothes. They know little about first aid or anything to do with taking care of injuries past water and a band-aid. They know precisely zero about farming or slaughtering of animals or effectively any practical knowledge about where their food comes from (they might know about buzz words like 'vegan' or 'fair trade' but have no true understanding of where any of their food comes from or how it's produced). And all of those things have existed more than a hundred years before anything as complicated as a smart phone came along (in the case of plumbing that's existed since Roman times over 2000 years ago. In the case of the idea of a "modern" house, well over 400 years. And obviously food: the beginning of human existence). Other people have specialization and understanding of all of those things and in fact do them for all of us. Including you.
So if that's babysiting, fine we can use that definition. In which case: yes people need babysiting.

Also: you can do whatever you want with your iPhone. I mentioned that above. Just enable dev mode on your phone and you can run any unsigned code you want. You want the freedom to do whatever even with Apple's blessing. So even that argument doesn't hold water. Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Um no. This is like Apple making the car and not giving you access to the ECU. Your expectation that people should be able to just know everything about security is like expecting people to know everything about how to maintain their car and fix it. Which by the way, they don't. It's functionally no different. It may perplex you that people don't know how email works. But guess what, if I even talked about advancing timings and increasing octane or anything about forced induction non-car people's heads would spin just the same as non-computer people with tech issues. This is putting aside any discussion about "basic" car maintenance.
I could go down the list of "basic" things people don't know how to do. Most can't build houses. They don't know anything about the electrical in their house. They know nothing about plumbing. They can't reupolster furniture. They can't sew or fix clothes or make clothes. They know little about first aid or anything to do with taking care of injuries past water and a band-aid. They know precisely zero about farming or slaughtering of animals or effectively any practical knowledge about where their food comes from (they might know about buzz words like 'vegan' or 'fair trade' but have no true understanding of where any of their food comes from or how it's produced). And all of those things have existed more than a hundred years before anything as complicated as a smart phone came along (in the case of plumbing that's existed since Roman times over 2000 years ago. In the case of the idea of a "modern" house, well over 400 years. And obviously food: the beginning of human existence). Other people have specialization and understanding of all of those things and in fact do them for all of us. Including you.
So if that's babysiting, fine we can use that definition. In which case: yes people need babysiting.
Click to expand...
You got way off the mark. The ECU would be iOS and it's not what we're talking about here. You have your official specialized worker and it's called the App Store. It's there for the people who don't want to have to bother or care too much. The difference is you are allowed to buy whatever faucet you like from wherever you want and even install it yourself if you're so inclined. Or hire any of thousands of certified plumbers to do it for you. And you can have your own garden and not have to buy lettuce from a designated supermarket. Or even have to buy it from a single designated supermarket only. The same for house building and all the rest.

What you are saying is you can't be bothered to do any of it yourself and hence don't see a problem with forbidding everyone else from doing it themselves.

Also: you can do whatever you want with your iPhone. I mentioned that above. Just enable dev mode on your phone and you can run any unsigned code you want. You want the freedom to do whatever even with Apple's blessing. So even that argument doesn't hold water. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
That's a barely functioning workaround, not a solution.
 
Meeho said:
What you are saying is you can't be bothered to do any of it yourself and hence don't see a problem with forbidding everyone else from doing it themselves.
Click to expand...
and
Meeho said:
That's a barely functioning workaround, not a solution.
Click to expand...
I find to be ironic. You want no babysitting, you got it. If you're complaining about coding your own stuff then we can revisit why people need other people doing stuff for them. You can't have it both ways; as it is in fact a solution. It's a solution that requires you to do everything, which is the exact opposite of hand-holding at any and every level.

And if that's a problem with you, then the brass tacks of what we're really discussing is: what hand-holding is okay and what level isn't. So you're complaining about Apple's line where they feel hand-holding should be, but then you're all of a sudden not okay with zero hand-holding. You want Apple to cater to what you think they should do, while ignoring the user base that is better served by the choices that Apple is making.

And this is completely side-stepping the fact that you already have the option to have it "your way" with a competitor, whom might I add has greater than 50% marketshare. If you're not even on Apple, all of these issues affect you precisely zero. And your opinion about what competitors are doing that you don't understand also matter precisely as much.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
and

I find to be ironic. You want no babysitting, you got it. If you're complaining about coding your own stuff then we can revisit why people need other people doing stuff for them. You can't have it both ways; as it is in fact a solution. It's a solution that requires you to do everything, which is the exact opposite of hand-holding at any and every level.

And if that's a problem with you, then the brass tacks are really going to be: what hand-holding is okay and what isn't. So you're complaining about Apple's line where they feel hand-holding should be, but then you're all of a sudden not okay with zero hand-holding.
Click to expand...
If you can't see a difference between not preventing, and temporarily allowing by jumping through hoops with limitations and no certainty of functioning tomorrow, I can't help you.
 
Meeho said:
If you can't see a difference between not preventing, and temporarily allowing by jumping through hoops with limitations and no certainty of functioning tomorrow, I can't help you.
Click to expand...
I thought we're talking about intelligent tech enthusiasts that can properly manage their phones? You have infinite ability to use dev. And not only that, you have infinite ability to never update your phone. As an enthusiast take responsibility and don't let Apple dictate what you can and can't do and don't allow them to hand hold you with updates.

More to the point: you'd have to show any instance case in which Apple has prevented devs from doing dev work or dev things using their program in the entire 10 years of iOS development. I know of zero. You?
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I thought we're talking about intelligent tech enthusiasts that can properly manage their phones? You have infinite ability to use dev. And not only that, you have infinite ability to never update your phone. As an enthusiast take responsibility and don't let Apple dictate what you can and can't do and don't allow them to hand hold you with updates.

More to the point: you'd have to show any instance case in which Apple has prevented devs from doing dev work or dev things using their program in the entire 10 years of iOS development. I know of zero. You?
Click to expand...
They don't have any Bluetooth SPP profiles in their drivers, this limits ones ability. Of course some smart person (not me) figured out how to jailbreak the iPhone and install a driver with support because it was always in hardware, just blocked by apple for use (I don't even know why, it's not as if it's insecure or anything). This is the reason.they had to make 2 versions of the wireless ELM chips... One for everyone else and one for Apple.
 
Newbie_52 said:
Interesting article with thoughts from actual lawyers. https://www.protocol.com/epic-games-lawsuit-chances
saying they could win but have uphill battles- Epic is alleging a "single-brand market," which judges typically do not prefer. "Alleging a single-brand market is an uphill battle," said Newman.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking that Epic may be on a fool's errand for that reason. Remember how Psystar (that company making wildly illegal Mac clones) tried to claim that Apple had a monopoly over its own products? Yeah, that didn't go over well with the judge. It's not quite the same, but the general idea persists: unless Apple has an actual monopoly over a wider market, you can't allege monopoly abuse within its own ecosystem. That doesn't mean you're without recourse... but Epic doesn't seem to have much of a Plan B for its case.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
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.
Click to expand...

That description sounds a lot like what studios do/did with musicians. Except the payout was before the album was completed so more risk on the studio.
 
Aurelius said:
I've been thinking that Epic may be on a fool's errand for that reason. Remember how Psystar (that company making wildly illegal Mac clones) tried to claim that Apple had a monopoly over its own products? Yeah, that didn't go over well with the judge. It's not quite the same, but the general idea persists: unless Apple has an actual monopoly over a wider market, you can't allege monopoly abuse within its own ecosystem. That doesn't mean you're without recourse... but Epic doesn't seem to have much of a Plan B for its case.
Click to expand...

So it sounds like the question may be. How large of a market can you legally have and not be subject to monopoly laws?

Here is my prediction. Apple gives a way for epic and others to have their own ecosystems. Then declares through a different policy that support. On any devices using this method to run un tested and un approved applications makes any warranty on your product nulll and void.
 
Grimlakin said:
So it sounds like the question may be. How large of a market can you legally have and not be subject to monopoly laws?

Here is my prediction. Apple gives a way for epic and others to have their own ecosystems. Then declares through a different policy that support. On any devices using this method to run un tested and un approved applications makes any warranty on your product nulll and void.
Click to expand...

I believe the threshold is closer to, say, 80% than "more than half." Where a company has a clear majority and companies are forced to serve a much smaller customer base. Apple barely has half of the American market, and it's in the minority in most parts of the world -- I don't think it meets that threshold.

I wouldn't count on Apple making concessions. Remember, part of why the iOS has relatively little malware on a practical level is because Apple doesn't allow third-party stores -- they're one of the common sources of malware on Android. If it did allow those stores, it'd probably have very strict terms that include signing all apps in a way that lets Apple remove them (similar to signed apps on macOS). And I'd only see that happen begrudgingly due to a court ruling or new law.
 
aokman said:
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...
Click to expand...
I think this whole platform thing is insane. All Apple, Google, Steam, and EPIC offer is a way to store your game on their servers so people can download. That is apparently enough to warrant 30% of the sale. I don't see a problem with people being able to download apps and install them onto your device without needing to access the store. Android does this to a degree but Apple does not. Both seem insane to me as a PC user. Android seems insane that your access to OS updates is dependant on your carrier paying for it.

4blb6y.jpg
 
UnknownSouljer said:
. . . .


You can already do this. And you have been able to do so since the beginning of iOS. It's called jailbreaking. You have the choice with the hardware in your hands to do whatever you want. So if you want to exploit your device and root it so you can run unsigned software, you have the freedom to do so. But you can't fault Apple for plugging those holes with every update, because all access to being able to do that is a security issue. But you're welcome to buy older hardware or devices with older versions of iOS and do whatever you want.
Yes, you can shotgun your iPhone if you want.

Even if you "disagree" that we're saying "is the same thing" it functionally is. Apple doesn't have the need or the want to stop you from doing this and there have been times that the "jailbreak store" boomed. But so is your risk of malware; as unless you're doing all the coding yourself you have no idea what is safe what isn't as literally none of the code will be signed. And the only way to get signed code is to have a third party go through all of it that you actually trust, and that essentially is what the App Store is. A first party vendor that actually analyzes code for malicious behavior and prevents it from being executed on your device - that also hosts and pushes all your software for you. And for that privilege they want a cut. But if your app is free then they even do those things for said devs for free.

And finally if you want to run whatever you want to run on your iPhone you can more or less literally do that too. Just enable developer mode on your Phone and you can run all the xCode you want to your hearts content. And no one will stop you. So enjoy that - we're dealing with the [H] - you should be totally fine just coding all your own software in order to whatever you want.

. . . .
Click to expand...

There is president for controlling people on multiple facets that maybe used, and no, companies were not >80% or even >25% for the given coal industry. Company Stores, mostly coal mining towns where the company controlled everything, including credit and banking. Apple eco-system does simulate this when you get locked into their music, Apple Pay, their store, games, software etc. Once you have substantial assets locked into a fixed eco-system you are like in a Company Town on the internet. If you cannot transfer your assets out of the Apple ecosystem, you cannot transfer your Apple Pay account to anything other than an Apple device for example. I think this aspect could cause problems for Apple. Now many of us foresaw this type of trap and just bypassed Apple all together and never joined their exclusive club. Anyways this lawsuit will probably be very interesting if it ever goes to court how ever it plays out. What will even be more interesting if this lawsuit goes worldwide as in Europe and Asia which could bring about varying findings, rules etc.
 
DukenukemX said:
I think this whole platform thing is insane. All Apple, Google, Steam, and EPIC offer is a way to store your game on their servers so people can download. That is apparently enough to warrant 30% of the sale. I don't see a problem with people being able to download apps and install them onto your device without needing to access the store. Android does this to a degree but Apple does not. Both seem insane to me as a PC user. Android seems insane that your access to OS updates is dependant on your carrier paying for it.

View attachment 270179
Click to expand...

As already mentioned, they do far more than that... they manage ongoing user subscriptions, payment gateway, maintaining the platform and Apple also dig through every app with a fine tooth comb to make sure they aren’t hiding anything like malware, privacy breaches etc...

Jesus even a retail store that sells a simple product takes a similar cut after wholesalers. They are entitled to make money you know...

You really think Epic are going pass the savings on to you? LOL they want to pocket the 30% or more...
 
For fortnite they have 2 methods of payment, where the one to Epic is less expensive. They pass most of the savings... Literally not pocketing
 
aokman said:
You really think Epic are going pass the savings on to you?
Click to expand...

In the court filings they show that they can deliver the same to the customer directly for less without Apple's cut.

cut.png
 
noko said:
There is president for controlling people on multiple facets that maybe used, and no, companies were not >80% or even >25% for the given coal industry. Company Stores, mostly coal mining towns where the company controlled everything, including credit and banking. Apple eco-system does simulate this when you get locked into their music, Apple Pay, their store, games, software etc. Once you have substantial assets locked into a fixed eco-system you are like in a Company Town on the internet. If you cannot transfer your assets out of the Apple ecosystem, you cannot transfer your Apple Pay account to anything other than an Apple device for example. I think this aspect could cause problems for Apple. Now many of us foresaw this type of trap and just bypassed Apple all together and never joined their exclusive club. Anyways this lawsuit will probably be very interesting if it ever goes to court how ever it plays out. What will even be more interesting if this lawsuit goes worldwide as in Europe and Asia which could bring about varying findings, rules etc.
Click to expand...
Okay. If they decide to breakup the things that Apple is doing then they'll have to enforce those policies on everyone else.

Examples: Apple Music etc operates under the exact same business model as all of their competitors like Amazon (eg: buying any digital music or buying a digital film). You buy your music on iTunes (now Apple Music) and then download them to place them on devices. You can do this on desktop, or phone regardless of platform via their app. This is also the same way that Steam operates - it requires their system in order to use it. I can't transfer my Steam library anywhere else either.

As a side note: ironically we have another article claiming that Tim Sweeney is advocating that all games should be transferable between marketplaces - but I know he has other motives for wanting that that aren't benevolent. And more to the point if he thinks that's good he should be a leader on the Epic store allow all marketplace transactions on his store to be transferable out and all others transferable in.

Back on the topic of buying things through them, iTunes, Music, App Store - all of their charges have been in line with their competition (Google, Amazon, Steam, etc) and they've had the same rules across the board for submissions to the App Store (neutrality) and they operate no differently than their competition.

As another side note, I don't think it's the responsibility of either Google or Apple to make apps cross compatible. They are effectively on two different systems and I don't expect small indie companies to make every app on Windows, and macOS, and Linux - I definitely don't and can't see how you can have a different expectation on phone OS's. And this is a big reason why any argument about transferring accounts in and out of phones from Apple to Google or vice versa fall flat on their face. You can make the argument that that is vendor lock in, but it's not Apple or Google's responsibility or imperative to code for their competitors any more than it is on a desktop OS. So if the courts have any brains in their heads they won't/can't use an argument like this. It's up to the software vendors if they want to support cross OS compatibility.
EG: its Adobe's prerogative if they want to sell Photoshop on both Windows and macOS and therefore code for both systems not Microsoft's or Apple's - and it's the same for Android and iOS.

---

Apple pay in particular isn't "an account". It is literally just an NFC transfer protocol that is secure. It requires your own banking to support it to work. It's basically something created for convenience and security - the reason it was created was to prevent duplication attacks that are easy with magnetic strips or by literally copying name/numbers on a Credit or Debit Card. It essentially creates a one time use cryptographic key on both ends of the transaction - in short - making it impossible to duplicate - while never exposing the actual banking/routing information to the vendor in any form. Google and Samsung both have created similar services that are also free and roughly the same. Although I would personally argue that Apple's system is more secure and doesn't have the dubious tracking from Google. That isn't the fault of Apple, that's the fault of Google and big data choosing to monetize their customers over and over again. And to reiterate, if Apple is targeted for this "exclusivity" then Google and Samsung also should be.

You could say that their creation of an NFC protocol used by phones is the "new magnetic strip". I don't know the history of credit cards, but obviously they all had to figure out how to make their own routing and backing work (likely by telecom long before broadband and tons of servers) for transactions around the globe. It was up to all those individual credit companies to figure it out. Now everywhere there is a magnetic strip/chip reader to do this. NFC is similar - it's not Apple's responsibility for people to figure out their transfer protocols anymore than it's Visa's responsibility to give MasterCard the support to do magnetic strip swiping or chip reading.

---

If you want to tl;dr this: Apple isn't doing anything that their competitors that are much larger aren't also doing. If you want that break down you can read above. Or not. You started the discussion with me.
 
Last edited:
Eh I’m not a fan of forcing Apple to open up the flood gates. The iOS App Store has a lot of trash in it but Androids Play store is a cess pool of garbage. Apple is at least decent at privacy concerns and does a fairly good job with male ware and other things.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Okay. If they decide to breakup the things that Apple is doing then they'll have to enforce those policies on everyone else.

Examples: Apple Music etc operates under the exact same business model as all of their competitors like Amazon (eg: buying any digital music or buying a digital film). You buy your music on iTunes (now Apple Music) and then download them to place them on devices. You can do this on desktop, or phone regardless of platform via their app. This is also the same way that Steam operates - it requires their system in order to use it. I can't transfer my Steam library anywhere else either.

As a side note: ironically we have another article claiming that Tim Sweeney is advocating that all games should be transferable between marketplaces - but I know he has other motives for wanting that that aren't benevolent. And more to the point if he thinks that's good he should be a leader on the Epic store allow all marketplace transactions on his store to be transferable out and all others transferable in.

Back on the topic of buying things through them, iTunes, Music, App Store - all of their charges have been in line with their competition (Google, Amazon, Steam, etc) and they've had the same rules across the board for submissions to the App Store (neutrality) and they operate no differently than their competition.

As another side note, I don't think it's the responsibility of either Google or Apple to make apps cross compatible. They are effectively on two different systems and I don't expect small indie companies to make every app on Windows, and macOS, and Linux - I definitely don't and can't see how you can have a different expectation on phone OS's. And this is a big reason why any argument about transferring accounts in and out of phones from Apple to Google or vice versa fall flat on their face. You can make the argument that that is vendor lock in, but it's not Apple or Google's responsibility or imperative to code for their competitors any more than it is on a desktop OS. So if the courts have any brains in their heads they won't/can't use an argument like this. It's up to the software vendors if they want to support cross OS compatibility.
EG: its Adobe's prerogative if they want to sell Photoshop on both Windows and macOS and therefore code for both systems not Microsoft's or Apple's - and it's the same for Android and iOS.

---

Apple pay in particular isn't "an account". It is literally just an NFC transfer protocol that is secure. It requires your own banking to support it to work. It's basically something created for convenience and security - the reason it was created was to prevent duplication attacks that are easy with magnetic strips or by literally copying name/numbers on a Credit or Debit Card. It essentially creates a one time use cryptographic key on both ends of the transaction - in short - making it impossible to duplicate - while never exposing the actual banking/routing information to the vendor in any form. Google and Samsung both have created similar services that are also free and roughly the same. Although I would personally argue that Apple's system is more secure and doesn't have the dubious tracking from Google. That isn't the fault of Apple, that's the fault of Google and big data choosing to monetize their customers over and over again. And to reiterate, if Apple is targeted for this "exclusivity" then Google and Samsung also should be.

You could say that their creation of an NFC protocol used by phones is the "new magnetic strip". I don't know the history of credit cards, but obviously they all had to figure out how to make their own routing and backing work (likely by telecom long before broadband and tons of servers) for transactions around the globe. It was up to all those individual credit companies to figure it out. Now everywhere there is a magnetic strip/chip reader to do this. NFC is similar - it's not Apple's responsibility for people to figure out their transfer protocols anymore than it's Visa's responsibility to give MasterCard the support to do magnetic strip swiping or chip reading.

---

If you want to tl;dr this: Apple isn't doing anything that their competitors that are much larger aren't also doing. If you want that break down you can read above. Or not. You started the discussion with me.
Click to expand...
The only significant difference between Apple and the items you listed from what I can tell is it is not locked to hardware from the same manufacturer except maybe Consoles but they are rather limited in scope. If that plays out in court is to be seen. If you lock people into an area, like a town and then control everything that can enter or not. Be the only one that makes the profit from owning that marketplace. Can and do take action to limit and prevent others from competing against what you don't want them to. Banning folks that want to do something different. Anyways others may join up on the lawsuit in this battle and I have a feeling Epic will not be alone.
 
blackmomba said:
For fortnite they have 2 methods of payment, where the one to Epic is less expensive. They pass most of the savings... Literally not pocketing
Click to expand...

That doesn’t mean they aren’t pocketing 30%+.... Well technically they are pocketing all of it as its fake currency.

Can believe people are defending Epic and their micro transaction bs...
 
noko said:
The only significant difference between Apple and the items you listed from what I can tell is it is not locked to hardware from the same manufacturer except maybe Consoles but they are rather limited in scope. If that plays out in court is to be seen.
Click to expand...
But it's not hardware locked.
From my examples above the only thing you could argue that is "hardware locked" is the app store. But as I mentioned this is far more of an iOS vs Android limitation and there can be no expectation for Apple to be responsible for the vendors who choose to offer software on one platform versus another. Any differently than companies choosing to only supply their software to Windows/Linux/macOS/etc. If you say there is an argument there, I would love that as that would basically mean every game manufacturer would finally be forced to support macOS and Linux on every game they make.
Apple Music and Movies have apps available on all platforms similar to Amazon Prime and all other competitors in the digital purchase space.


noko said:
If you lock people into an area, like a town and then control everything that can enter or not. Be the only one that makes the profit from owning that marketplace. Can and do take action to limit and prevent others from competing against what you don't want them to. Banning folks that want to do something different. Anyways others may join up on the lawsuit in this battle and I have a feeling Epic will not be alone.
Click to expand...
This is so far beyond the scope of what we're talking about. First off, Apple isn't capable of controlling people's income - other than from the people they employ, and that's an entirely different law suit.
Second there are alternatives.
And third it isn't Apple's responsibility to support the alternatives. If you buy a Ford and they make Ford parts and people make performance parts for Ford, you can't expect either Ford on any of those third party vendors to make "equivalent parts" for any other manufacturer. The fact that every part on a Ford is proprietary doesn't really matter.
Like owning a Ford, you can choose to do whatever you want with it. But if you want license or approval from Ford themselves that's an entirely different matter.

The analogy breaks down when talking about some levels in the software business - but suffice to say if you've bought into the platform you're choosing that - no one needs to buy a Ford. No one needs to buy specifically an Apple iPhone or indeed any smartphone. Apple wont' stop you from hacking your own phone or running your own code (other than creating patches for security reasons). Also as I've mentioned anyone can run their phone in dev mode and then you really literally can do whatever you want. You just can't merely sell whatever you want on their platform.

Having requirements for being on their platform and using their system is basically the only things that any of these court cases can argue about. And if Apple wasn't neutral in their dealing or charging more than their competitors these law suits might have a lot more to support them. But considering that their competition is all literally doing the same stuff - I don't see that there is any ground to stand on unless literally the top 5 media businesses in the world probably equaling over several trillion dollars in market cap combined are all forced to change.
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
I think this whole platform thing is insane. All Apple, Google, Steam, and EPIC offer is a way to store your game on their servers so people can download. That is apparently enough to warrant 30% of the sale. I don't see a problem with people being able to download apps and install them onto your device without needing to access the store. Android does this to a degree but Apple does not. Both seem insane to me as a PC user. Android seems insane that your access to OS updates is dependant on your carrier paying for it.

View attachment 270179
Click to expand...

There's a bit more variety then what is stated here. Let me start with the end bit - You're right that Apple makes it much harder to use alternative sources versus Android. Apple keeps things pretty locked down and always have. Android is better here where you have to check a checkbox in the settings to enable 3rd party install sources, but after that its more or less up to you, including the safety ramifications thereof. Note that this is much less complicated and separate from "rooting", "unlocking the bootloader" and "Flashing a custom OS ROM" , but still means straying outside the security guidelines a little that keep non-technical users more secure. This is one reason why Epic expecting Fortnite users to enable 3rd party install sources to manually load their APK is a big deal.

Regarding Android OS updates, it isn't so much about your carrier just paying for it as it is is if your hardware is supported and if the carrier insists on a particularly configured ROM. Some of these happen for somewhat good reasons, such as ensuring that you have support for their frequencies and tech, while almost all of them either like to install certain bundled applications as "system" apps (ie you can't just easily uninstall them), change branding and the like. If you device has the exact same hardware profile (meaning the drivers and firmware for say... its modem are accurate among other things etc ) its possible to simply flash a ROM for your device from another manufacturer or region should one exist. However, if there are differences in the OS , hardware, or ways things are configured it can be problematic. Most carriers don't really focus on supporting their devices for a long time sadly and won't have nice, slipstreamed OTA updates. This is one reason I have in the past typically focused on buying devices that were well supported, often focused on developers, and used "plain Android" or something very close to it (as well as the availability of a good custom ROM community, which usually requires easy to unlock bootladers, available AOSP and hardware drivers etc) such as the Nexus and later Pixel devices or OnePlus (though some devices are not without issue). There are issues of concern such as Android becoming more proprietary (ie the difference between the AOSP open source Android base, and the different core elements in even a 'pure' ROM like Google's Pixel, besides simple downloadable apps pre-installed) and locked down (new safety checks not allowing some apps to work properly if the phone is rooted or even if the bootloader is unlocked!), and though part is simply Google monetization/branding, another bit is their attempt to temper their openness to deal with criticisms levied vs Apple ; I consider this a bad road to follow as part of the reason I choose Android is because they do NOT operate the kind of walled garden that Apple does.

Regarding PC game launchers, there is a VAST variety to what a "platform" does. In some cases a store is a key reseller or occasionally direct download with no real "platform? of their own, such as Humble, GreenManGaming, or others. All most all of these marketplaces have an advertising component (ie If you put X game on a certain store that is well known, you're exposing it to users on that platform even without any true typical advertising) built in to whatever cut is present and in some cases (ie physical distribution, keysellers) its the majority justification. However, some do much much more. Steam and Epic provide an amazing contrast and this is a reason why I'm so incensed by Epic trying to categorize Steam as somehow not justifying their cut.

Steam has THE most in depth comprehensive source of platform tools in digital game distribution, aimed at and benefitting both end user/player and dev/publishers. They have not just a basic storefront with a shopping cart, but have extremely in depth categories, tags, heuristic/AI etc...filtering. Users that play or wishlist (another feature!) a game can be suggested others by both official/dev tags and user supplied ones, similar gametypes, publisher/developer, or tons of other categories ; the "discovery queue" is available should users wish to sort through it as well, providing content that Steam thinks they may like based on past use. There is an in-depth user rating system that can be charted over time and is kept up to date as well, even to the point of identifying review bombing attempts and compensating without obfuscation. There is a system for users to provide reviews that feed into the ratings and even the ability to both follow or become a Curator, which is another tier of review/suggestion etc. Developers/publishers even have their own sort of "homepage" where all their products are listed and other integrations are possible. This leads into the extremely in depth "community" where each game will be provided a forum, its own community page, a place for user created guides, and much more. When it comes to the games themselves, Steam handles a wide variety of tasks including downloading and auto-updating, but Steam can easily add non-Steam games and applications, launching them, providing the use of Steam features like the in-game Overlay, and other elements very similar as if they were native to Steam! There are other features which exist both as part of Steam and its Community but also are part of its Steamworks integrations that developers can choose for their games, which are MASSIVE features. Steamworks is NOT in and of itself DRM, though there is a rarely used DRM module for it. Rather, Steamworks can be used to enable Steam's account system, access to such Community elements as Achievements, Trading Cards, and Items, access to the Steam Workshop feature for auto-installing/updating and overall access to user-created mods/content, plus easily available drop in multiplayer support without the dev having to code their own servers or P2P infrastructure! I cannot overstate the value here, considering that Steam's comprehensive suite of ready-to-go tools is one of the main reasons that Japanese gaming grew onto PC in the modern digital-distribution era. JP devs were used to consoles who took care of everything for them,such as accounts and multiplayer and found it daunting to come to PC and have to basically craft all this stuff from scratch. You'll see some earlier JP big name publishers brought games that on consoles had multiplayer and online features to Steam WITHOUT any online support - Dynasty Warriors 8 XL comes to mind, for example - because of this kind of issue. Thankfully, Steam providing a comprehensive alternative allowed these devs to have an easier time transitioning to PC ; n ot that there weren't other issues that had to do with decisions to port but Steam was a major factor in bringing many titles to PC. Not to mention, Steam did all of this without the additional costs, fees, and restrictions that console manufacturers often required above simply a cut of the profits after the fact! There are myriad other ways that Steam contributes as well, including elements like Linux support, its "Big Picture" controller focused UI , an extremely in depth controller configuration tool originally designed for the Steam Controller but open to all major types, and some major open spec and open source developments - their enhanced WINE alternative Proton is integrated into Steam Play and their SteamVR/OpenVR system sets the standard!

These were just a few of the features that Steam offers in return for its standard cut of the profits. It should be mentioned by the way that once a game sells a certain volume, they lower their cut down to 25% and to 20% at a further benchmark; there are also other plans for indies where less is taken from early sales instead. For all of what Steam has done and developed, much of it in open ways even when they could have gone with something more restrictive, they certainly offer a lot of value - atop being one of the largest platform/markets around for exposure! Contrast this to Epic Store, which didn't even launch with a shopping cart and I'm unsure if they have one now. They have almost NOTHING and are actively hostile to many features like user reviews, because their idea is to cater to publishers and lock them into their infrastructure often by use of Unreal Engine (engines being a separate field, but in Epics case they closely link it to the store ). Epic Games Store doesn't have all the comprehensive technical or community features that Steam does, nor does it even stack up to some other platforms out there such a Itch (which has an open source client that pretty much handles downloads, uploads and the like) or GOG (which has direct downloads an an optional Galaxy client to act as a launcher if desired, yet Epic accuses Steam of being an unearned monopoly ! Instead, Epic proffers their lower cut, which is very easy for them to do because A) They're sitting on a fortune from Fortnite, their deals, and tons of investment including a 40%+ stake from Tencent and B) They don't have nearly the infrastructure and features to support! It would be like if one town charged an affordable X for membership to their very nice recreation infrastructure including a well attended pool, golf course, clubhouse, and more. Then another town charges 1/2 X but only has a dirty lawnchair outside of a gas station with a blow-up kiddy pool, while lambasting the first town for being overpriced! This is to say nothing for Epic's choice to engage with bringing the pernicious idea of store/platform exclusives to PC rather then try to compete with Steam by actually making a better product. Worse, they continue to wrap their greed-focused decisions in a thin veneer of altruistic faux-justification.

Ultimately, I'd prefer an era where users could choose their platform totally separately from access/purchase of a game. Steam actually tried this years ago, along with a move to enable game key resale that could benefit players, publishers, and Steam like, but sadly the publishers all balked at the idea. Perhaps its worth another try because it is growing increasingly frustrating to see all these useless platforms arrive. However, among alll the useless platforms developed more or less to simply allow a corporation the ability to get ALL the money without sharing even a bit of it, there are a tiny few such as Steam that have made a conscious effort to add real features, benefit, and value to their platform making them worth supporting.
 
I've been thinking about this more, and Epic's whole strategy around this bugs me.

It's not just that this was obviously a stunt — it's that Epic is trying to weaponize its fans. You can't really claim you're "for the people" when you're trying to exploit them for an agenda that's ultimately self-serving (in this case, to pressure Apple into lowering its share and/or allowing third-party app stores). Apple and Google aren't clean, but Epic is clearly hoping to recruit kids who may not know the first thing about the story beyond "Apple and Google removed Fortnite."

It reminds me of Google circa 2010, trying to trick a generation of enthusiasts into believing a giant internet search company was a counterculture rebel fighting the eeeeeevil Apple (see the false "Android is open" claims). Stick it to The Man by doing exactly what we say and being a conformist!
 
Going to place the following prediction here: when season 4 starts and an update is needed, Epic will pull the direct pay option and leave only the Apple/Google pay options at a higher price. They will then tapdance a bit trying to encourage folks to buy the VBucks at a lower price in their store instead of in the mobile os method.
 
Aurelius said:
I've been thinking about this more, and Epic's whole strategy around this bugs me.

It's not just that this was obviously a stunt — it's that Epic is trying to weaponize its fans. You can't really claim you're "for the people" when you're trying to exploit them for an agenda that's ultimately self-serving (in this case, to pressure Apple into lowering its share and/or allowing third-party app stores). Apple and Google aren't clean, but Epic is clearly hoping to recruit kids who may not know the first thing about the story beyond "Apple and Google removed Fortnite."

It reminds me of Google circa 2010, trying to trick a generation of enthusiasts into believing a giant internet search company was a counterculture rebel fighting the eeeeeevil Apple (see the false "Android is open" claims). Stick it to The Man by doing exactly what we say and being a conformist!
Click to expand...

Tim Sweeney seems to be obsessed with lowering fees, and seemingly wants to do everything to get to that point. He clearly has some ideals and wants to stick to them no matter what, despite some of the methods in which he attempts to go about it are absolutely outrageous. Regarding the fee thing, it isn't sustainable. EGS as a bare bones client was operating at 3-4% margins. Maybe you can do it for lower than 30%, but if you want to scale up to Steam's level of features (even without the junk) it will likely surpass the 12%.

While I don't mind the funding of developers as Epic seems to offer a lot of good solutions, he should probably limit himself to that and Unreal Engine.
 
I like Sweeney, but he seems to contradict himself at times. For example, EGS still charges fees (while lower, the business model is the same), and acts as a gatekeeper more than Steam does.

EGS is very much a curated experience, anyone can't just release a game there without Epic approval, whereas Google Play and Steam are basically a free-for-all, for better or for worse.
 
I did a whole night of consumer protection law research and ended up with a deep seated, all consuming confusion.

If lawyers understand this shit, I'm just impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top