Epic Vs Apple in court now. Who wins?

Theocritus

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apple-epic-games-revealing-ton-133000214.html

FrodoFragins

I'm not a lawyer so my opinion means nothing.  But I don't see how Apple is a monopoly when they aren't the only phone platform.  I also have a feeling that Epic losing money with their store AND charging a much lower fee won't do them any favors. (Yes I know their losses are probably due to all the exclusives they buy)

I hate Apple and would love to see them forced to allow other storefronts.  But I feel like that needs to be done with legislation.  The same goes for breaking their hold on repairs of their products in the U.S.

Vrika

FrodoFragins said:

I'm not a lawyer so my opinion means nothing.  But I don't see how Apple is a monopoly when they aren't the only phone platform.  I also have a feeling that Epic losing money with their store AND charging a much lower fee won't do them any favors. (Yes I know their losses are probably due to all the exclusives they buy)

I hate Apple and would love to see them forced to allow other storefronts.  But I feel like that needs to be done with legislation.  The same goes for breaking their hold on repairs of their products in the U.S.

Apple could be considered monopoly, because app maker for mobile phones can't realistically release their own phone just so that they could sell their app for it.

For Android phone makers Apple isn't a monopoly because they can compete against it. For mobile app makers they are in situation where about half of mobile app revenue comes through IOS users, and most of those users are people who can't buy that app unless the dev agrees to pay App store's 30% fee.

Imho Epic's suit against Google is flimsy because Google is still leaving Android users the option to go outside their store (if most choose to not do that's not monopoly), but Epic has a chance against Apple.

Mendel

The thing that bothers me about Apple is that they claim proprietary control over the iPhone *and* the apps that can run on it, even those created by independent developers.  Apple wants their store to be the sole provider for all applications that run on their mobile platforms, and essentially is trying to stop Epic from doing an end-around the Apple store and providing cheaper access to Epic's products in an alternative store.  There probably *was* some kind of developer agreement, but stating where the third parties app could be sold seems far too controlling.  It's certainly against the customer's best interests.

It might not be technically a monopoly, but Apple is certainly trying to treat their store like it is.

cameltosis

I think Apple will win the arguement over the app store and will remain in control and able to charge whatever they want. Public pressure / competitiveness may well persuade them to lower their fees, but it won't be a legal order.

I think Epic will win the arguement over in-app payment systems and Apple will be forced to allow devs to use their own payment systems.....but this will likely have unfortunate consequences as Apple will then probably start charging upfront fees to devs of F2P mobile games.

The thing is, Apple has every right to remain in control of their own ecosystem and enforce a level of quality / safety to all apps running on their ecosystem. This is also in-line with many other hardware systems - Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are exactly the same with their games consoles. If you want to put your software on their system, you have to jump through their hoops (quality testing) and you'll have to pay for that priveledge. When I worked for a games studio, we had to pay Microsoft £25k ($25k? cant remember whether it was pounds or dollars) for them to approve any patches we released.

So, I think Apple will win this part of the arguement.

If they lost this part, then not only Apple, but MS, Sony, Nintendo and any others with a closed ecosystem will be forced to open it up. That could have very serious ramifications and I cannot see it being good for the consumer. If those companies aren't getting their money from games sales, they're going to have to get it from elsewhere, for example they might actually have to make a profit from their console sales, so expect £1000+ console costs and even more aggressive studio takeovers. It may even result in Nintendo, for example, finally throwing in the towel and giving up on console development.

But, once you've jumped through those hoops, once Apple has done their thing and checked your app for quality and safety, from that point on they don't really have any right to your money. I can understand them taking a cut of any apps using Apples payment system, but if a game wants its own in-app payment system then they should be allowed to do so.

The sticking point here is that many devs will then opt to go fully F2P - so Apple won't receive a sales cut - and just put everything in their in-game stores. In this instance, Apple still needs to do their quality testing, but now they're getting no money for doing so. So, Apple will need to figure out a way to get money out of devs and may resort to upfront fees, which could kill off the indie dev market.

So, thats why I think Epic will win this part of the arguement, but winning may not necessarily be a good thing.

Mendel

cameltosis said:

I think Apple will win the arguement over the app store and will remain in control and able to charge whatever they want. Public pressure / competitiveness may well persuade them to lower their fees, but it won't be a legal order.

I think Epic will win the arguement over in-app payment systems and Apple will be forced to allow devs to use their own payment systems.....but this will likely have unfortunate consequences as Apple will then probably start charging upfront fees to devs of F2P mobile games.

The thing is, Apple has every right to remain in control of their own ecosystem and enforce a level of quality / safety to all apps running on their ecosystem. This is also in-line with many other hardware systems - Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are exactly the same with their games consoles. If you want to put your software on their system, you have to jump through their hoops (quality testing) and you'll have to pay for that priveledge. When I worked for a games studio, we had to pay Microsoft £25k ($25k? cant remember whether it was pounds or dollars) for them to approve any patches we released.

So, I think Apple will win this part of the arguement.

If they lost this part, then not only Apple, but MS, Sony, Nintendo and any others with a closed ecosystem will be forced to open it up. That could have very serious ramifications and I cannot see it being good for the consumer. If those companies aren't getting their money from games sales, they're going to have to get it from elsewhere, for example they might actually have to make a profit from their console sales, so expect £1000+ console costs and even more aggressive studio takeovers. It may even result in Nintendo, for example, finally throwing in the towel and giving up on console development.

But, once you've jumped through those hoops, once Apple has done their thing and checked your app for quality and safety, from that point on they don't really have any right to your money. I can understand them taking a cut of any apps using Apples payment system, but if a game wants its own in-app payment system then they should be allowed to do so.

The sticking point here is that many devs will then opt to go fully F2P - so Apple won't receive a sales cut - and just put everything in their in-game stores. In this instance, Apple still needs to do their quality testing, but now they're getting no money for doing so. So, Apple will need to figure out a way to get money out of devs and may resort to upfront fees, which could kill off the indie dev market.

So, thats why I think Epic will win this part of the arguement, but winning may not necessarily be a good thing.

Interesting.  I do tend to think that both sides will have to walk a very strict line to keep from completely disrupting the apple cart.  I can't help feeling like Apple has built a hammer in the iPhone, and wants to control what type of nails can be used, though.  I guess the safest thing to hope for at this point is that neither company diversifies into hardware.

cameltosis

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

I think Apple will win the arguement over the app store and will remain in control and able to charge whatever they want. Public pressure / competitiveness may well persuade them to lower their fees, but it won't be a legal order.

I think Epic will win the arguement over in-app payment systems and Apple will be forced to allow devs to use their own payment systems.....but this will likely have unfortunate consequences as Apple will then probably start charging upfront fees to devs of F2P mobile games.

The thing is, Apple has every right to remain in control of their own ecosystem and enforce a level of quality / safety to all apps running on their ecosystem. This is also in-line with many other hardware systems - Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are exactly the same with their games consoles. If you want to put your software on their system, you have to jump through their hoops (quality testing) and you'll have to pay for that priveledge. When I worked for a games studio, we had to pay Microsoft £25k ($25k? cant remember whether it was pounds or dollars) for them to approve any patches we released.

So, I think Apple will win this part of the arguement.

If they lost this part, then not only Apple, but MS, Sony, Nintendo and any others with a closed ecosystem will be forced to open it up. That could have very serious ramifications and I cannot see it being good for the consumer. If those companies aren't getting their money from games sales, they're going to have to get it from elsewhere, for example they might actually have to make a profit from their console sales, so expect £1000+ console costs and even more aggressive studio takeovers. It may even result in Nintendo, for example, finally throwing in the towel and giving up on console development.

But, once you've jumped through those hoops, once Apple has done their thing and checked your app for quality and safety, from that point on they don't really have any right to your money. I can understand them taking a cut of any apps using Apples payment system, but if a game wants its own in-app payment system then they should be allowed to do so.

The sticking point here is that many devs will then opt to go fully F2P - so Apple won't receive a sales cut - and just put everything in their in-game stores. In this instance, Apple still needs to do their quality testing, but now they're getting no money for doing so. So, Apple will need to figure out a way to get money out of devs and may resort to upfront fees, which could kill off the indie dev market.

So, thats why I think Epic will win this part of the arguement, but winning may not necessarily be a good thing.

Interesting.  I do tend to think that both sides will have to walk a very strict line to keep from completely disrupting the apple cart.  I can't help feeling like Apple has built a hammer in the iPhone, and wants to control what type of nails can be used, though.  I guess the safest thing to hope for at this point is that neither company diversifies into hardware.

I think it's more a case of Apple has created a hammer, and wants to make sure you only use nails that won't break and spike you in the hand.

It's a bit of a carebear situation, and maybe a bit naive on my part.

But, it also makes Apple 100% liable. If an inappropriate app gets out to the public, then it's Apple's fault. If an app breaks your phone, it's Apple's fault. Apple then has to pay the price, and being a big multinational corp, they have the means to compensate us.

If Apple is no longer in control of their ecosystem, then they are longer liable. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault. Essentially, consumer protections will be eroded.

Is that a price worth paying? A more open ecosystem may well open up more options for devs, which may lead to more interesting games, or a better environment for indie studios. But we'll also get more porn, more broken consoles and phones, more terrorist apps, and a hell of a lot more viruses packed in with games. So, most consumers will probably just stick with official stores anyway, just like most PC gamers stick to the big, well established storefronts right now.

Wizardry

The lawyers win.

There is no way any sub par judge is going against the simple contract laws because he would have to set a new precedent.IMO Epic is right to stand up for themselves after being  ripped off by the Apple monopoly but then again it is APPLE's store and their  terms and price fixing.

The government as long as 3-5 years ago was already questioning the motive of these giant entities like Amazon,Microsoft,Apple etc etc  but never does anything.
I already mentioned previously that Epic hired former government lawyers that actually worked within the monopoly investigations so i am 100% sure they thought they had a good case.
IMO there will be a multi settlement but in the end Apple wins because Epic agreed to the contract.The law is not always just not even right but it is the law so it makes itself the judge of right or wrong.

Trying to prove the laws surrounding this particular case are wrong or not covering enough bases to be fully compliable is imo a futile attmept.Eventually the governing bodies will formulate new laws with better definitions and wording but for now Epic loses.

Vrika

cameltosis said:

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

I think Apple will win the arguement over the app store and will remain in control and able to charge whatever they want. Public pressure / competitiveness may well persuade them to lower their fees, but it won't be a legal order.

I think Epic will win the arguement over in-app payment systems and Apple will be forced to allow devs to use their own payment systems.....but this will likely have unfortunate consequences as Apple will then probably start charging upfront fees to devs of F2P mobile games.

The thing is, Apple has every right to remain in control of their own ecosystem and enforce a level of quality / safety to all apps running on their ecosystem. This is also in-line with many other hardware systems - Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are exactly the same with their games consoles. If you want to put your software on their system, you have to jump through their hoops (quality testing) and you'll have to pay for that priveledge. When I worked for a games studio, we had to pay Microsoft £25k ($25k? cant remember whether it was pounds or dollars) for them to approve any patches we released.

So, I think Apple will win this part of the arguement.

If they lost this part, then not only Apple, but MS, Sony, Nintendo and any others with a closed ecosystem will be forced to open it up. That could have very serious ramifications and I cannot see it being good for the consumer. If those companies aren't getting their money from games sales, they're going to have to get it from elsewhere, for example they might actually have to make a profit from their console sales, so expect £1000+ console costs and even more aggressive studio takeovers. It may even result in Nintendo, for example, finally throwing in the towel and giving up on console development.

But, once you've jumped through those hoops, once Apple has done their thing and checked your app for quality and safety, from that point on they don't really have any right to your money. I can understand them taking a cut of any apps using Apples payment system, but if a game wants its own in-app payment system then they should be allowed to do so.

The sticking point here is that many devs will then opt to go fully F2P - so Apple won't receive a sales cut - and just put everything in their in-game stores. In this instance, Apple still needs to do their quality testing, but now they're getting no money for doing so. So, Apple will need to figure out a way to get money out of devs and may resort to upfront fees, which could kill off the indie dev market.

So, thats why I think Epic will win this part of the arguement, but winning may not necessarily be a good thing.

Interesting.  I do tend to think that both sides will have to walk a very strict line to keep from completely disrupting the apple cart.  I can't help feeling like Apple has built a hammer in the iPhone, and wants to control what type of nails can be used, though.  I guess the safest thing to hope for at this point is that neither company diversifies into hardware.

I think it's more a case of Apple has created a hammer, and wants to make sure you only use nails that won't break and spike you in the hand.

It's a bit of a carebear situation, and maybe a bit naive on my part.

But, it also makes Apple 100% liable. If an inappropriate app gets out to the public, then it's Apple's fault. If an app breaks your phone, it's Apple's fault. Apple then has to pay the price, and being a big multinational corp, they have the means to compensate us.

If Apple is no longer in control of their ecosystem, then they are longer liable. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault. Essentially, consumer protections will be eroded.

Is that a price worth paying? A more open ecosystem may well open up more options for devs, which may lead to more interesting games, or a better environment for indie studios. But we'll also get more porn, more broken consoles and phones, more terrorist apps, and a hell of a lot more viruses packed in with games. So, most consumers will probably just stick with official stores anyway, just like most PC gamers stick to the big, well established storefronts right now.

Except that afaik Apple is not liable. None of the big stores are liable like that. Either they are not liable at all, or they're only liable to give you refund, no compensation.

You might be able to get a big store liable if they knew of the problem and neglected to act. But as long as they try to act against malware, the malware that still gets past them is not their fault it just happens.


Also, and perhaps more importantly, whether other stores exists has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's liability on their own store's programs. Their liability is based on them having programs on their store, not on them blocking programs from other stores.

AlBQuirky

cameltosis said:

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

I think Apple will win the arguement over the app store and will remain in control and able to charge whatever they want. Public pressure / competitiveness may well persuade them to lower their fees, but it won't be a legal order.

I think Epic will win the arguement over in-app payment systems and Apple will be forced to allow devs to use their own payment systems.....but this will likely have unfortunate consequences as Apple will then probably start charging upfront fees to devs of F2P mobile games.

The thing is, Apple has every right to remain in control of their own ecosystem and enforce a level of quality / safety to all apps running on their ecosystem. This is also in-line with many other hardware systems - Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are exactly the same with their games consoles. If you want to put your software on their system, you have to jump through their hoops (quality testing) and you'll have to pay for that priveledge. When I worked for a games studio, we had to pay Microsoft £25k ($25k? cant remember whether it was pounds or dollars) for them to approve any patches we released.

So, I think Apple will win this part of the arguement.

If they lost this part, then not only Apple, but MS, Sony, Nintendo and any others with a closed ecosystem will be forced to open it up. That could have very serious ramifications and I cannot see it being good for the consumer. If those companies aren't getting their money from games sales, they're going to have to get it from elsewhere, for example they might actually have to make a profit from their console sales, so expect £1000+ console costs and even more aggressive studio takeovers. It may even result in Nintendo, for example, finally throwing in the towel and giving up on console development.

But, once you've jumped through those hoops, once Apple has done their thing and checked your app for quality and safety, from that point on they don't really have any right to your money. I can understand them taking a cut of any apps using Apples payment system, but if a game wants its own in-app payment system then they should be allowed to do so.

The sticking point here is that many devs will then opt to go fully F2P - so Apple won't receive a sales cut - and just put everything in their in-game stores. In this instance, Apple still needs to do their quality testing, but now they're getting no money for doing so. So, Apple will need to figure out a way to get money out of devs and may resort to upfront fees, which could kill off the indie dev market.

So, thats why I think Epic will win this part of the arguement, but winning may not necessarily be a good thing.

Interesting.  I do tend to think that both sides will have to walk a very strict line to keep from completely disrupting the apple cart.  I can't help feeling like Apple has built a hammer in the iPhone, and wants to control what type of nails can be used, though.  I guess the safest thing to hope for at this point is that neither company diversifies into hardware.

I think it's more a case of Apple has created a hammer, and wants to make sure you only use nails that won't break and spike you in the hand.

It's a bit of a carebear situation, and maybe a bit naive on my part.

But, it also makes Apple 100% liable. If an inappropriate app gets out to the public, then it's Apple's fault. If an app breaks your phone, it's Apple's fault. Apple then has to pay the price, and being a big multinational corp, they have the means to compensate us.

If Apple is no longer in control of their ecosystem, then they are longer liable. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault. Essentially, consumer protections will be eroded.

Is that a price worth paying? A more open ecosystem may well open up more options for devs, which may lead to more interesting games, or a better environment for indie studios. But we'll also get more porn, more broken consoles and phones, more terrorist apps, and a hell of a lot more viruses packed in with games. So, most consumers will probably just stick with official stores anyway, just like most PC gamers stick to the big, well established storefronts right now.

That's how apple started. Their PCs had proprietary hardware only manufactured by Apple. That was major difference Apple PCs and DOS machines. Anyone could make a DOS PC hardware component. This attitude continued on to their mobile phones.

Apple also charged a LOT more for their PCs and required end-users to upgrade (and pay for) each new OS. But they their systems into schools

As for this lawsuit, I have no horse in the race so I can sit back see what happens.

PS: I didn't want to sound like "Apple's way" to do business is "bad." In technology, making sure each component works correctly is very important. I've had too many struggles trying to get DOS PC hardware to talk to each other

FrodoFragins

Vrika said:

FrodoFragins said:

I'm not a lawyer so my opinion means nothing.  But I don't see how Apple is a monopoly when they aren't the only phone platform.  I also have a feeling that Epic losing money with their store AND charging a much lower fee won't do them any favors. (Yes I know their losses are probably due to all the exclusives they buy)

I hate Apple and would love to see them forced to allow other storefronts.  But I feel like that needs to be done with legislation.  The same goes for breaking their hold on repairs of their products in the U.S.

Apple could be considered monopoly, because app maker for mobile phones can't realistically release their own phone just so that they could sell their app for it.

For Android phone makers Apple isn't a monopoly because they can compete against it. For mobile app makers they are in situation where about half of mobile app revenue comes through IOS users, and most of those users are people who can't buy that app unless the dev agrees to pay App store's 30% fee.

Imho Epic's suit against Google is flimsy because Google is still leaving Android users the option to go outside their store (if most choose to not do that's not monopoly), but Epic has a chance against Apple.

Where's the precedent for that type of monopoly?  Microsoft had a much larger market share of the OS and they weren't broken up or treated like a monopoly.  

And if iPhones are a monopoly then so is every console maker.  

Steam has a sizable market share at this point, are they a monopoly?

As I said, this isn't fixed by the courts, it's fixed by legislation.

Quizzical

iDevices are just game consoles in a different form factor.  I don't think that the business model that game console manufacturers have been using for decades becomes illegal just because Apple uses it for devices in a different form factor.

Vrika

FrodoFragins said:

Vrika said:

FrodoFragins said:

I'm not a lawyer so my opinion means nothing.  But I don't see how Apple is a monopoly when they aren't the only phone platform.  I also have a feeling that Epic losing money with their store AND charging a much lower fee won't do them any favors. (Yes I know their losses are probably due to all the exclusives they buy)

I hate Apple and would love to see them forced to allow other storefronts.  But I feel like that needs to be done with legislation.  The same goes for breaking their hold on repairs of their products in the U.S.

Apple could be considered monopoly, because app maker for mobile phones can't realistically release their own phone just so that they could sell their app for it.

For Android phone makers Apple isn't a monopoly because they can compete against it. For mobile app makers they are in situation where about half of mobile app revenue comes through IOS users, and most of those users are people who can't buy that app unless the dev agrees to pay App store's 30% fee.

Imho Epic's suit against Google is flimsy because Google is still leaving Android users the option to go outside their store (if most choose to not do that's not monopoly), but Epic has a chance against Apple.

Where's the precedent for that type of monopoly?  Microsoft had a much larger market share of the OS and they weren't broken up or treated like a monopoly.  

And if iPhones are a monopoly then so is every console maker.  

Steam has a sizable market share at this point, are they a monopoly?

As I said, this isn't fixed by the courts, it's fixed by legislation.

Where is the precedent that it's not a monopoly?

Most of our competition laws and practices are still from era when this kind of problems could not exists, and Epic might be first one to take this kind of situation to the court.


Also as for Microsoft, they have been treated as monopoly/company with dominant market position. I believe there was settlement that forced Microsoft to make some actions to give competitors better access to Windows in USA, and in EU they've faced some large fines.

Mendel

Quizzical said:

iDevices are just game consoles in a different form factor.  I don't think that the business model that game console manufacturers have been using for decades becomes illegal just because Apple uses it for devices in a different form factor.

Sony/Nintendo/etc. do not require all software for their devices to come from their store; you can buy from Gamestop, Best Buys, Target, Walmart, etc.  That Apple want to direct all retail sales through its store, even for products it didn't make is the objectionable part, at least for me.

cameltosis

Mendel said:

Quizzical said:

iDevices are just game consoles in a different form factor.  I don't think that the business model that game console manufacturers have been using for decades becomes illegal just because Apple uses it for devices in a different form factor.

Sony/Nintendo/etc. do not require all software for their devices to come from their store; you can buy from Gamestop, Best Buys, Target, Walmart, etc.  That Apple want to direct all retail sales through its store, even for products it didn't make is the objectionable part, at least for me.

But nintendo, sony, MS etc do require all software to be tested by them, vetted, licenced etc before being allowed to be sold for their consoles. No matter where you buy your game from, the console makers are getting their cut somewhere along the line.

I'm sure Apple would be open to other storefronts as long as they could still get their cut.

Theocritus

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/epic-apple-antitrust-app-store-case-billions-at-stake-133246708.html

Hopefulyl we get a decision soon...should be interesting

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

cameltosis

I'm still pretty confident in Apple winning the majority of this case now that the evidence and arguments have been presented.

What has astonished me is just how bad both sides of this case have been arguing their point of view!

I mean, how the fuck is either Tim Sweeney or Tim Cook in charge of their respective companies?!?!?! Both have come out of this looking like muppets

From the small amount of transcript I've read, it sounds like the Judge has got her head screwed on right, she's been calling the witnesses on their bullshit.

Vermillion_Raventhal

I mean, Windows got in trouble for Internet Explorer. How can Apple have total control over everything on the platform and it be allowed.  

laserit

Market share means a lot when arguing Monopolies. I can see it swinging both ways.

I don't think this case is going to end here.

cameltosis

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

I mean, Windows got in trouble for Internet Explorer. How can Apple have total control over everything on the platform and it be allowed.  

I guess the same way that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have total control over their consoles. Apples way of doing things is pretty well established, it only only becomes a problem when market share gets too high.

If Apple has to open up their operating system to other stores, then all the console makers will also have to follow suit and that will have major consequences. I just can't see that happening as a result of this case.

I don't mind being wrong though! It would certainly be an interesting shift in the industry, and as part of the PC Master Race, I can just watch from the sidelines :P

Vrika

cameltosis said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

I mean, Windows got in trouble for Internet Explorer. How can Apple have total control over everything on the platform and it be allowed.  

I guess the same way that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have total control over their consoles. Apples way of doing things is pretty well established, it only only becomes a problem when market share gets too high.

If Apple has to open up their operating system to other stores, then all the console makers will also have to follow suit and that will have major consequences. I just can't see that happening as a result of this case.

I don't mind being wrong though! It would certainly be an interesting shift in the industry, and as part of the PC Master Race, I can just watch from the sidelines :P

Console makers wouldn't automatically have to open up their systems even if Apple would be forced to open theirs.

Consoles are a bit different, and they would have a bit different arguments in court as to why they don't need to open their systems. One important difference is that there are people who have multiple gaming consoles so that they can play games published on different platforms, and buying a console to play its exclusive games is a thing. Whereas you don't really have IPhone users who'd buy an Android and start carrying another mobile phone around for some Android exclusive app.

If Apple is forced to open up their systems, consoles might or might not be forced to do it. It'd need another trial for drawing the line.

botrytis

I think Apple is a monopoly period. People have to pay for development kits and then also pay them 30% off the top, just to have their apps in the store.

Earlier, an Engineer for Apple stated, under oath, that there is too much malware on the Apple ecosystem. He blames getting apps from other sources as the reason, not that their software has bugs. flaws, etc. This is part of Apple's reasoning for charging 30% off the top.

I hope Apple loses it's shirt. I don't want Epic to win but Apple is surely arrogant about it.

botrytis

cameltosis said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

I mean, Windows got in trouble for Internet Explorer. How can Apple have total control over everything on the platform and it be allowed.  

I guess the same way that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have total control over their consoles. Apples way of doing things is pretty well established, it only only becomes a problem when market share gets too high.

If Apple has to open up their operating system to other stores, then all the console makers will also have to follow suit and that will have major consequences. I just can't see that happening as a result of this case.

I don't mind being wrong though! It would certainly be an interesting shift in the industry, and as part of the PC Master Race, I can just watch from the sidelines :P

Not the case - you can buy games from the companies making the game. With Apple, you cannot - plain and simple.

Aeander

botrytis said:

I think Apple is a monopoly period. People have to pay for development kits and then also pay them 30% off the top, just to have their apps in the store.

Earlier, an Engineer for Apple stated, under oath, that there is too much malware on the Apple ecosystem. He blames getting apps from other sources as the reason, not that their software has bugs. flaws, etc. This is part of Apple's reasoning for charging 30% off the top.

I hope Apple loses it's shirt. I don't want Epic to win but Apple is surely arrogant about it.

Here's the thing. An Epic win essentially makes the walled garden model utilized by consoles illegal. I'm sure the PC-centric crowd would love that, but that isn't good for the consumer. The curated walled garden is something that some of us prefer and should have the option to seek out.

Vrika said:

cameltosis said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

I mean, Windows got in trouble for Internet Explorer. How can Apple have total control over everything on the platform and it be allowed.  

I guess the same way that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have total control over their consoles. Apples way of doing things is pretty well established, it only only becomes a problem when market share gets too high.

If Apple has to open up their operating system to other stores, then all the console makers will also have to follow suit and that will have major consequences. I just can't see that happening as a result of this case.

I don't mind being wrong though! It would certainly be an interesting shift in the industry, and as part of the PC Master Race, I can just watch from the sidelines :P

Console makers wouldn't automatically have to open up their systems even if Apple would be forced to open theirs.

Consoles are a bit different, and they would have a bit different arguments in court as to why they don't need to open their systems. One important difference is that there are people who have multiple gaming consoles so that they can play games published on different platforms, and buying a console to play its exclusive games is a thing. Whereas you don't really have IPhone users who'd buy an Android and start carrying another mobile phone around for some Android exclusive app.

If Apple is forced to open up their systems, consoles might or might not be forced to do it. It'd need another trial for drawing the line.

These are all subjective arguments, not legal ones. The courts may not care about any of these practical concerns. And indeed, we have already seen a piggyback class action against Sony.