# [UPDATE] Epic Games to sue Apple and Google



## Prans (Aug 13, 2020)

Tim of Epic vs Tim of Apple. who will win?


----------



## franciscomaianunes (Aug 13, 2020)

Prans said:


> Tim of Epic vs Tim of Apple. who will win?


pretty sure it will be Tim


----------



## smileyhead (Aug 13, 2020)

This will be interesting. Didn't Epic break the Apple ToS? Do they even have a case?

*EDIT: *They definitely knew it was coming and prepared the lawsuit beforehand. Maybe they even angered Apple intentionally so they could do this.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 13, 2020)

Prans said:


> Tim of Epic vs Tim of Apple. who will win?


Cook Sweeny. Definitely.


----------



## FancyTorben (Aug 13, 2020)

"Let them fight." - Dr. Ishiro Serizawa | Godzilla (2014)


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2020)

Absolutely hilarious.  I don't have any love for Apple, but Tim Sweeney is such a raging douchebag.  Hopefully they can both somehow lose.


----------



## Little_Anonymous_Hacker (Aug 13, 2020)

smileyhead said:


> This will be interesting. Didn't Epic break the Apple ToS? Do they even have a case?


It seems to be less about breaking the ToS, and more about how the ToS has always been "unfair and anti-competitive" in the first place.


smileyhead said:


> They definitely knew it was coming and prepared the lawsuit beforehand. Maybe they even angered Apple intentionally so they could do this.


I'm sure of it.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Aug 13, 2020)

Prans said:


> Tim of Epic vs Tim of Apple. who will win?


Who won? Who's next? You decide. 
Epic rap battles of history!


----------



## Chary (Aug 13, 2020)

Well that escalated quickly.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2020)

Little_Anonymous_Hacker said:


> It seems to be less about breaking the ToS, and more about how the ToS has always been "unfair and anti-competitive" in the first place.


True, but don't kid yourself, Epic has no problem with anti-competitive practices...so long as they're the ones profiting from those practices.


----------



## hamohamo (Aug 13, 2020)

Yes epic is not an angel but atleast it supports indie devs and the smaller people while apple is the embodiment of how terrible capitalism can get. Though I don't see epic winning something like this I hope they do.


----------



## MiiJack (Aug 13, 2020)

This could have been calculated


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 13, 2020)

I don't like Apple and quite honestly under any normal circumstance, I would cheer for whoever is the one suing them. But I actually dislike Epic far more than I dislike Apple, so I hope Apple kicks their ass.


----------



## jt_1258 (Aug 13, 2020)

Ahh, a battle between two super villains. Let me go grab the popcorn, this outa be good.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Aug 13, 2020)

I hope Apple loses and they get a dose of their greedy medicine lol


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 13, 2020)

Fortnite sure is a troublesome compadre
Maybe this case will open the app store in the Future. Its quite limited


----------



## Rail Fighter (Aug 13, 2020)

Fortnite is love.


----------



## sup3rgh0st (Aug 13, 2020)

Prans said:


> Tim of Epic vs Tim of Apple. who will win?


inb4 It's the lawyers who will win.


----------



## yusuo (Aug 13, 2020)

This should be interesting, it's not David vs goliath, it's goliath vs goliath. Both have very deep pockets and can litigate this with the most expensive lawyers money can buy.

I hope epic win as it would set a precedent and ultimately help the smallest developers get a bigger piece of the pie


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 13, 2020)

They both need a smack upside the head with a spiked bat.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 13, 2020)

ShadowOne333 said:


> I hope Apple loses and they get a dose of their greedy medicine lol


i mean both are legendarily greedy to begin with

but epic aren't the ones selling $4000 netbooks, $1000 monitor stands and $1000 wheels


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 13, 2020)

Money money money and money. Wow, greedy!


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Aug 13, 2020)

Latiodile said:


> i mean both are legendarily greedy to begin with
> 
> but epic aren't the ones selling $4000 netbooks, $1000 monitor stands and $1000 wheels


Yeah agree, I didn't say Epic wasn't greedy, but from the two, we clearly know who the biggest one is.
Apple can go fuck off for all I care with their overbloated prices for stuff that's not even worth the price, and even worse force you to purchase their shit and nothing else.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Aug 13, 2020)

uhh oh, apples gonna lose, they are gonna have to bribe the judge i guess.


----------



## Dartz150 (Aug 13, 2020)

Prepare for twitter shitload comming.


----------



## PrincessLillie (Aug 13, 2020)

Epic baited Apple into a lawsuit holy shit
They also published an animation about it to their YouTube channel and are looping it on Twitch

This is some next-level type baiting
and I love Epic Games for this, this coming from someone who used to think Fortnite was the plague
get fucked Apple


----------



## jt_1258 (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> Epic baited Apple into a lawsuit holy shit
> They also published an animation about it to their YouTube channel and are looping it on Twitch
> 
> This is some next-level type baiting
> ...



is this a lawsuit or a decleration of war...good lord


----------



## PrincessLillie (Aug 13, 2020)

jt_1258 said:


> is this a lawsuit or a decleration of war...good lord


I think it's both
and it's about time


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 13, 2020)

This is pretty funny. Especially when thinking about all those Epic exclusive games on PC. Really bummed I can't get Mortal Shell on Steam until 2021..

I hope they both lose a ton of money in this.


----------



## RivenMain (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> Epic baited Apple into a lawsuit holy shit
> They also published an animation about it to their YouTube channel and are looping it on Twitch




Yo they remade the 1984 apple commercial   ♥ I'm not huge on Fortnite, I'll watch people play it, but I just suck at playing~ Forcing people from the games they love. I don't see how or why it hurt apple perhaps will find out as the lawsuit progresses.


----------



## Olmectron (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> Epic baited Apple into a lawsuit holy shit
> They also published an animation about it to their YouTube channel and are looping it on Twitch
> 
> This is some next-level type baiting
> ...



Good heavens.

This was planned.

How do we know this thing isn't just a big staged plan for marketing on both companies and the improvement of Apple TOS' for publishing on the app store that they were going to make anyway.


----------



## PrincessLillie (Aug 13, 2020)

Olmectron said:


> Good heavens.
> 
> This was planned.
> 
> How do we know this thing isn't just a big staged plan for marketing on both companies and the improvement of Apple TOS' that they were going to make anyway.


Why would it be planned on Apple's part? What does Apple gain from bad publicity like this?


----------



## Lumince (Aug 13, 2020)

Im conflicted on whos side I should be on  I hate both almost equally it seems


----------



## Anxiety_timmy (Aug 13, 2020)

I can just image all the 9 year olds making videos about this


----------



## THEELEMENTKH (Aug 13, 2020)

Lmao they even made a cinematic that plays inside the game


----------



## Anxiety_timmy (Aug 13, 2020)

Ohh boy I see the mob of 8 year olds y'all


----------



## Olmectron (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> Why would it be planned on Apple's part? What does Apple gain from bad publicity like this?


At least it was planned for some time from Epic's part.

I get what you say.

It's just two companies that have more money than we could even think about. It seems unreal for me, that's all.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Both are greedy anyway. Fortnite isn't doing this to set a precedent for smaller devs and publishers, but for them to pay nothing, or at least a lot less, to Apple.


----------



## TehCupcakes (Aug 13, 2020)

I hope Epic wins. Not because I like them - in fact I quite despise them. But in this particular instance, they are fighting for a good outcome. It's not like the typical lawsuit seeking for "compensation from damages"; rather, they want a bigger slice of the pie on future sales, and to do so means opening up iOS as a platform. That would be a huge win in my book. Apple's fiercely closed ecosystem IS anti-competitive and needs to be challenged.


----------



## PrincessLillie (Aug 13, 2020)

Olmectron said:


> Both are greedy anyway. Fortnite isn't doing this to set a precedent for smaller devs and publishers, but for them to pay nothing, or at least a lot less, to Apple.


I don't think Epic was making any extra money from purchases for the small amount of time their direct payment feature was live, I think they actually discounted purchases by 30% if you used Epic direct payment, meaning they gain nothing from this, except not having to pay into the Apple monopoly.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 13, 2020)

this is just too funny on one hand we have a money hungry computer company who would sue those diy tuber repairing apple products no to mention so much security in their newer computers to prevent "unauthorized repairs" and lobby against right to repair laws on the other hand we have a gaming company who loves to sue teens for cheating (rather exploiting a bug) in an irrelavant online tps but if bugs occur in the game store (let's say the games don't register to the account once purchaced) they wouldn't give a damn cause they got your money but if i had to pick a side epic cause they don't pull strings in the government to keep their shady repair er replace for full price practices legit


----------



## LightBeam (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> I don't think Epic was making any extra money from purchases for the small amount of time their direct payment feature was live, I think they actually discounted purchases by 30% if you used Epic direct payment, meaning they gain nothing from this, except not having to pay into the Apple monopoly.


They do that in order to "relaunch" the microtransactions craze a little bit, they even sent 20% vbucks to those who bought a little while ago for compensation
But it's for their own sake, they are still winning. By seeing that they lower the prices, people (and especially kids) will tend to buy again.
So they are still winning with that move, they just don't want anybody else to profit from that.

Sweeney is blaming Apple and Google for they "duopoly" because they are running the two most popular stores (well ... it's their own OS so no shit) but on the other hand, does kill the Rocket League Linux compatibility, calls for "being united on Windows" or whatever bullshit. He doesn't seem to care about Windows monopoly cuz he just do not know how to profit from Linux yet, but when he will oh boy, he will flip.



Sweeney is just full of hypocrisy. most people seems to be aware of that and that's cool. I wouldn't want a world where he could say whatever bullshit with everyone clapping. At least I don't have the feeling that Apple is even trying to make me feel like they are good ... But whatever they are both shit, good thing I don't have to take any side.


----------



## shinwg (Aug 13, 2020)

I don’t understand why so many people hate Epic ? They give us free games all the time. They kind have better deal than steam why all the hate ? I’m not fan of epic I don’t play fortnite but I saw epic give lot of good free games

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



shinwg said:


> I don’t understand why so many people hate Epic ? They give us free games all the time. They kind have better deal than steam why all the hate ? I’m not fan of epic I don’t play fortnite but I saw epic give lot of good free games


Also F Apple they always charge me taxes the only company that do that I hope they lose


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 13, 2020)

shinwg said:


> I don’t understand why so many people hate Epic ? They give us free games all the time. They kind have better deal than steam why all the hate ? I’m not fan of epic I don’t play fortnite but I saw epic give lot of good free games
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Their tactics are scummy. The fact that this looks like it's intentional doesn't really help, if I'm honest. Sweeney can fall off the face of the earth for all I care.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> Epic baited Apple into a lawsuit holy shit


How did Apple get "baited" if Epic are the ones who initiated the lawsuit?  If anything it's the other way around.



sks316 said:


> I don't think Epic was making any extra money from purchases for the small amount of time their direct payment feature was live, I think they actually discounted purchases by 30% if you used Epic direct payment, meaning they gain nothing from this, except not having to pay into the Apple monopoly.


Of course they have something to gain by keeping 100% of the profit from in-app purchases.  It's extremely unlikely that any discount they're offering now is going to be permanent.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Aug 13, 2020)

Wait... I'm just reading this on Twatter.
So... for what I understood it goes like this?


EPIC does something about micro transactions in Fortnite without telling Apple
Apple finds about this and takes Fortnite as a response towards EPIC's violations towards Apple's Policies
EPIC law suits Apple for that decision?


----------



## DbGt (Aug 13, 2020)

#FreeFortnite



> Apple has blocked Fortnite from the App Store, removing everyone’s ability to install and update the game on iOS devices, while instructing Epic to “remove the ‘Epic direct payment’ feature”. Apple is keeping prices high so they can collect 30% of your payments, and is blocking Fortnite in order to prevent Epic from passing on the savings from direct payments to you! Join the fight against @AppStore on social media with #FreeFortnite
> 
> *Why doesn’t Epic capitulate to Apple’s demand to remove Epic direct payment?*
> 
> ...



https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite

https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/fortnite-mega-drop-faq


----------



## PrincessLillie (Aug 13, 2020)

Xzi said:


> How did Apple get "baited" if Epic are the ones who initiated the lawsuit? If anything it's the other way around.


How is it the other way around? Epic knew exactly what they were doing when they published the direct payment feature. You really don't think they typed up an entire legal document and made an entire animation in less than an hour, do you..? This was planned and made specifically to bait Apple into getting involved with a lawsuit.


Xzi said:


> Of course they have something to gain by keeping 100% of the profit from in-app purchases. It's extremely unlikely that any discount they're offering now is going to be permanent.


According to Polygon and The Verge, it's a permanent price cut.


----------



## LightBeam (Aug 13, 2020)

shinwg said:


> I don’t understand why so many people hate Epic ? They give us free games all the time. They kind have better deal than steam why all the hate ? I’m not fan of epic I don’t play fortnite but I saw epic give lot of good free games
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



It's not only about free games. I also take the free games and I don't really mind the launcher anymore (I mean, it's still shit, but they don't seem to do this "exclusivity contract" bullshit with games that were already announced on Steam) but that doesn't make them less shitty.
Sometimes they can give cool games but most of the time it's games that you will not play + you already played.
But even if you play every game they give you, Steam is still better (I mean ... You can have both). I really don't see why would you buy a game on Epic if it's available on Steam. 99% of the time, prices are better on Steam. There are more services, the launcher is more reliable, big picture, Steam Proton (open source contribution from Valve to Linux compatibility), Steam Couch, Voice Chat, Softwares, Achievements, Forums and hubs, Workshops (!!!), Reviews, Cloud Saves (I mean, FUNCTIONING cloud saves), Profile pages, Big Picture, Steam Link, the incredible controller compatibility, and I think i've forgot some ...

So is Epic a better deal ? I'm not so sure about that. Epic deserved a lot of hate because of what I said earlier : the contracts with games that were already announced on Steam (but there was also the spying stuff that were accused of collecting data, like pc specs, wishlists including steam wishlist and stuff, idk what happened with that). Now people do not really have any reason to give a damn.
Hope you do understand a little bit more why Epic isn't quite appreciated. Steam just proved it's service is a way more consumer-friendly than Epic ever had and may ever have.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Aug 13, 2020)

i hope neither wins


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> You really don't think they typed up an entire legal document and made an entire animation in less than an hour, do you..?


This... so much this.
That's why I'm so confused.
Not that I care about Fortnite nor apple, but this seems suspicious.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2020)

JuanMena said:


> Wait... I'm just reading this on Twatter.
> So... for what I understood it goes like this?
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty much sums it up.  Epic agreed to the App Store TOS back when they first listed Fortnite on it, they recently changed in-app purchases to bypass the App Store (which violated the TOS), and Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store as a result.  Then Epic sued over the removal.

Like I said before, I'm definitely no fan of either corporation, but I'd be very surprised if this lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.  The facts are pretty cut and dry.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Aug 13, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Pretty much sums it up.  Epic agreed to the App Store TOS back when they first listed Fortnite on it, they recently changed in-app purchases to bypass the App Store (which violated the TOS), and Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store as a result.
> 
> Like I said before, I'm definitely no fan of either corporation, but I'd be very surprised if this lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.  The facts are pretty cut and dry.


Yea, me neither. I can't give a fuck about fortnite.
But again, all of this seems suspicious to me.
Like... they knew they were violating the "Licence Agreement" before violating it, don't they?


----------



## LightBeam (Aug 13, 2020)

Also just a little thing : the commission was at 30% and they lowered the price to 20%, so they are winning 10% with this. So saying that they do not profit from this is absolutely false. Now I see on Twitter that companies like Spotify do support Epic in this, which is not surprising considering that if they win, other companies will follow and try to sell microtransactions directly and expecting Apple to also give/sell their app for 0 cost


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2020)

JuanMena said:


> Like... they knew they were violating the "Licence Agreement" before violating them, don't they?


It certainly appears that way, which leaves them with no legitimacy in their case unless they're arguing that the entire agreement/TOS should be null and void for some obscure, roundabout reason.


----------



## LightBeam (Aug 13, 2020)

JuanMena said:


> Yea, me neither. I can't give a fuck about fortnite.
> But again, all of this seems suspicious to me.
> Like... they knew they were violating the "Licence Agreement" before violating them, don't they?


I think they do but maybe they are willing to take the risk, they have a huge ton of money.
Maybe they are counting on the support of both their players and other companies who will want the same thing ? Even if they violated the ToS they may try to argue about the ToS are unfair to them


----------



## MasterJ360 (Aug 13, 2020)

Thats ok Apple will just make another useless iphone to regain the money loss....


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 13, 2020)

sks316 said:


> Epic baited Apple into a lawsuit holy shit
> They also published an animation about it to their YouTube channel and are looping it on Twitch
> 
> This is some next-level type baiting
> ...




Y'know, in any normal court case, this would be screaming Malicious Intent and be a REALLY damning piece of evidence against Epic because of the timing, implications, etc.

Edit: While it on its own does not constitute proof of anything regarding intent, do remember that actions taken after committing a court action can be used to sway the Judge/Jury/Etc that the plaintiff or defendant have less than noble motives, which CAN be used to sway the judge/jury "Hey, they clearly are not doing this for noble reasons, they did it to intentionally stir trouble", for example. See: Akilla vs Akkad.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Aug 13, 2020)

LightBeam said:


> I think they do but maybe they are willing to take the risk, they have a huge ton of money.
> Maybe they are counting on the support of both their players and other companies who will want the same thing ? Even if they violated the ToS they may try to argue about the ToS are unfair to them


Man... I agree fighting the tirany towards big ass companies that sells cancer to people.
But maybe... maybe... these kind of companies wouldn't be such cancer if their customers didn't support them in the first place.
Why create such conspiracy to prove a point?

Are they... trying to imply something? Like... if they win, they expect everyone to call them saviours or something like that?
To me it seems likely, that EPIC want's to be like: 
"Look what they've done to me, they're the bad guys and I'm the good one"


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Y'know, in any normal court case, this would be screaming Malicious Intent and be a REALLY damning piece of evidence against Epic because of the timing, implications, etc.


Yeah that's true, I didn't even consider that.  Besides the legal implications, it's also childish as can be, not to mention an insult to the source material.  "Large Corporation A, please save us from the grip of Large Corporation B!"


----------



## LightBeam (Aug 13, 2020)

JuanMena said:


> Man... I agree fighting the tirany towards big ass companies that sells cancer to people.
> But maybe... maybe... these kind of companies wouldn't be such cancer if their customers didn't support them in the first place.
> Why create such conspiracy to prove a point?
> 
> ...


https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite?sessionInvalidated=true

I mean they are already heading this way, which is really disgusting imo. They are clearly saying that "Apples disagrees with you ! We believe that people should pay less but Apple do not allow developers like us to do so !! Make your voice heard with #FreeFortnite on social medias !!!"
I don't think I've ever seen a company saying such things, and Fortnite players are already taking Epic's word for it and propagate fake news about the subject just in order to make Apple look bad.

I mean I don't care about Apple reputation at all, but it seems unfair to me, Epic is just disgusting

But yeah, if Apple can really use that to their advantage to win the case ....
Honestly I would be glad lol. I'm team Apple now (despite me never ever possessed any Apple product, I just want to see Epic getting rolled)


----------



## RichardTheKing (Aug 13, 2020)

Has Epic bothered to create more exclusivity deals, or are they done with that anti-competition crap? I haven't heard of a new one in months.
Additionally, how is Epic's vaunted roadmap, for their barebones store and launcher, holding up? Is it progressing as it should, or was it abandoned like Anthem's?


----------



## MetoMeto (Aug 13, 2020)

*The EPIC saga!*


----------



## LightBeam (Aug 13, 2020)

RichardTheKing said:


> Has Epic bothered to create more exclusivity deals, or are they done with that anti-competition crap? I haven't heard of a new one in months.
> Additionally, how is Epic's vaunted roadmap, for their barebones store and launcher, holding up? Is it progressing as it should, or was it abandoned like Anthem's?


It was abandoned, they couldn't keep up with it lol


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 13, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Yeah that's true, I didn't even consider that.  Besides the legal implications, it's also childish as can be, not to mention an insult to the source material.  *"Large Corporation A, please save us from the grip of Large Corporation B!"*





JuanMena said:


> Man... I agree fighting the tirany towards big ass companies that sells cancer to people.
> But maybe... maybe... these kind of companies wouldn't be such cancer if their customers didn't support them in the first place.
> Why create such conspiracy to prove a point?
> 
> ...



It's funny, recently I watched a video.

"Fascists will attempt to make you believe they're the good guys, so once they take over, you're gladly eating out of the palm of their hand with a smile."

Both of these groups could be viewed almost fascist with how they approach business - strict authoritarian systems and generally corrupt leaderships that expect everything to go their way.

Now I don't mean this as a political commentary about society as much as a reference to what fascism is by definition:
"*Fascism* (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, *authoritarian* ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, *forcible suppression of opposition*, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."

Now, Epic attempts to suppress competition by exclusivity deals - anyone remember the Shenmue 3 debocle? (Edit: To clarify/respond to an earlier post: no, they very much still do it, but nowhere as aggressively and it's become so standard it would be like calling Water Wet. It's a frickin' given. Total War: Troy I believe is the latest example). (Edit 2: For those saying 'it's just business, not them being controlling', let's not forget they made offers to some indies saying 'exclusive with us, or don't get on our platform at all'.)

Apple - please we don't even need to argue this, every bit of them suppresses competition from their Right-To-Repair mentality up to their very management of all their services really. And as we see with Epic - they were quick to punish Epic without even *attempting* to talk to them (presuming there weren't talks before). (This don't even exclude that their OSes are basically incompatible with Windows programs, and their programs incompatible with Windows OS. Which again - authoritarian and suppression of opposition. Rather than welcome opposition they try to limit it).

Both want control over us, the consumer. And they are damn heavy on trying to suppress competition the best they can.

*Do not, under any circumstances, turn this into a commentary of the current political landscape, I swear to god I am just referencing how the two are reminding me of a video quote.*
-------------------------
That aside, both of these companies honestly need to be knocked down a serious peg or 15.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Aug 13, 2020)

I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing this whole situation as I understood it.

Both companies (EPIC and APPLE) can go fuck themselves, and why not... Microsoft too!


----------



## RichardTheKing (Aug 13, 2020)

Apple vs Epic...I personally don't care about either one, honestly. Epic just needs to screw off and collapse, what with their garbage "game", barebones launcher, and history of shady exclusivity deals.

Apple, though...the only thing of theirs I really like is the macOS, uh, OS. Find it much less cluttered and obtuse than Windows, personally, and more visually appealing in terms of GUI. Not only does Finder, for example, have native tab support (unlike File Explorer - come on, Microsoft, this is a basic QoL improvement!), but the desktop also groups files under file type, greatly reducing desktop clutter (and load times, too). I find it much easier to find stuff using Finder, too. Having the Bin always available on the right end of the Dock is handy, as is separating open programs (Dock) from the clock, toolbar, and program menus (Taskbar).

Otherwise, Apple is just...ugh. iOS is locked down tight, not allowing the level of customisation Android permits, and their business practices are pure trash.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 13, 2020)

Even if Satan itself sued apple I would side against apple... so, go Epic!


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 13, 2020)

JuanMena said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing this whole situation as I understood it.
> 
> Both companies (EPIC and APPLE) can go fuck themselves, and why not... Microsoft too!


Microsoft may be greedy, but from at least my POV, ignorant as it is on *this* matter, they aren't anywhere near Crapple or Epic Lames. Microsoft's beginning to let many of their console games go PC, and from what I can tell they're very open to competition on almost every level. They may have exclusive games like Epic, but they're a First Party which does give an argument to the situation, on top of being generally the fact that when their games do go multi-platform, they aren't segregating their own audience to just one platform. PSO2 for example might be a Microsoft Store exclusive, but it is going to Steam too as I understand.

I used to hate Microsoft, but in recent years it seems they've begun getting their shit together. Apple? Hahaha... no.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> It's funny, recently I watched a video.
> 
> "Fascists will attempt to make you believe they're the good guys, so once they take over, you're gladly eating out of the palm of their hand with a smile."
> 
> ...


The source material being referenced in Epic's little video segment is the movie version of Orwell's "1984," which itself is a commentary on the rise of fascism.  So you're spot on with the analysis here, giving either corporation complete control over a segment of the population would result in "re-education" camps being established in record time.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 13, 2020)

Xzi said:


> The source material being referenced in Epic's little video segment is the movie version of Orwell's "1984," which itself is a commentary on the rise of fascism.  So you're spot on with the analysis here, giving either corporation complete control over a segment of the population would result in "re-education" camps being established in record time.


I knew the title was a bit too on the nose but I didn't expect it to be THAT on the nose...


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Aug 13, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Microsoft may be greedy, but from at least my POV, ignorant as it is on *this* matter, they aren't anywhere near Crapple or Epic Lames. Microsoft's beginning to let many of their console games go PC, and from what I can tell they're very open to competition on almost every level. They may have exclusive games like Epic, but they're a First Party which does give an argument to the situation, on top of being generally the fact that when their games do go multi-platform, they aren't segregating their own audience to just one platform. PSO2 for example might be a Microsoft Store exclusive, but it is going to Steam too as I understand.
> 
> I used to hate Microsoft, but in recent years it seems they've begun getting their shit together. Apple? Hahaha... no.


I blame the users / consumers of Apple Products.


----------



## DarkCoffe64 (Aug 13, 2020)

,,,remember when it was just, like, "Mario vs Sonic" or "Pokèmon vs Digimon" or other stuff of the sort?
Sigh


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 13, 2020)

JuanMena said:


> I blame the users / consumers of Apple Products.


Definitely don't help with convincing Apple their ways are wrong.


----------



## Paulsar99 (Aug 13, 2020)

One of my earliest phone was the iphone and got fed up with it because everything about it was too constrictive. I still have to jailbreak the damn thing first before I can actually feel that I own the product. Went android and loving it, no reason to go back to this expensive crap and their garbage practices.


----------



## ZeroFX (Aug 13, 2020)

Prans said:


> Tim of Epic vs Tim of Apple. who will win?


hopefully the one that arent chinese owned


----------



## Gon Freecss (Aug 13, 2020)

LightBeam said:


> https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite?sessionInvalidated=true
> 
> I mean they are already heading this way, which is really disgusting imo. They are clearly saying that "Apples disagrees with you ! We believe that people should pay less but Apple do not allow developers like us to do so !! Make your voice heard with #FreeFortnite on social medias !!!"
> I don't think I've ever seen a company saying such things, and Fortnite players are already taking Epic's word for it and propagate fake news about the subject just in order to make Apple look bad.
> ...


Smells like chinese communist party tricks at play. #TeamApple here... or should I say #TimApple? *giggles*


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 14, 2020)

I never had any apple product and I never buy any apple product even if I have money for that.
And I'm still alive.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Here's my honest thoughts on this case excluding what I posted earlier:

A company is allowed to NOT host their IP on an apple device. Apple is likewise allowed to require a 'hosting fee', disgusting as it is.

The problem is the people buying into EITHER of their crap. 

There is no 'anti-trust' with what Apple's doing. They are not stopping companies from hosting on an Android Phone, they are not stopping them from hosting on Windows, etc, in this case. Epic chose to produce a copy of their game for Apple. They agreed to Apple's terms and services.

*Realistically, regardless how scummy Apple is, they are legally within their rights. They set the rules, and now Epic don't want to play by them.*

This is not to say Epic's not being scummy either. They are expecting special treatment. They got denied that special treatment and got punished as per the TOS.

*Ultimately: I view this as an open-shut case in Apple's favor.*

If people want Apple to lose, then do the world a frickin' favor and stop buying their phones and their computers, accessories, dongles, dingles, and snorkles.

*Begging Apple to lose this case would overthrow the established laws of this country as to contract laws (in this case, the ToS for using the Apple Store platform) and be an exercise in just turning this country inside out more than it's already becoming were apple to lose. The only sane solution will be Apples winning. As I said last line: the only way apple loses, is if people stop buying Apple services/items and also stops using Apple's "Official Repair services".*

Nothing Apple has done is explicitly illegal. Scummy yes, but scummy don't really have punishments unless they're anti-competitive, anti-consumer to extremes, etc. Anti-Right-to-Repair is an extreme case of anti-consumer as it's also anti-competitive, for example. That is something Apple is VERY LIKELY to lose on, ideally. But until the law changes, nothing they do is explicitly illegal that we know of.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 14, 2020)

ZeroFX said:


> hopefully the one that arent chinese owned


Hate to burst your bubble, but Apple is heavily-reliant on Chinese manufacturing to produce their hardware, which these days more likely than not means profiting from Uighur slave labor as well.  So while Apple isn't 40% owned by Tencent like Epic is, China's government still wins no matter who loses in this particular lawsuit.


----------



## Noctosphere (Aug 14, 2020)

Tell me if I got it wrong please
When an app is sold on the AppStore, Apple takes a 30% cut of the profit
When you buy something inside an app downloaded on AppStore, Apple takes a30% cut of the profit

Epic Games made its own microtransaction system so that they dont pay the 30% cut to Apple, right?
I got this right now?

Well... I just call what EG is doing unfair, right?
Because they are big, they shouldn't have to pay the cut? Is that it?
WTF is that? Another big company who thinks they are above everything?


----------



## diggeloid (Aug 14, 2020)

As a developer, I _really_ hope Epic wins this one. Fuck Apple's bullshit. It's about time someone stood up to them.


----------



## Virtual-Wii-noob (Aug 14, 2020)

while i hate both companies i hope epic wins since they've got one hell of a point


----------



## diggeloid (Aug 14, 2020)

Noctosphere said:


> Tell me if I got it wrong please
> When an app is sold on the AppStore, Apple takes a 30% cut of the profit
> When you buy something inside an app downloaded on AppStore, Apple takes a30% cut of the profit
> 
> ...



You got it wrong. Apple is the one who is not treating developers fairly. They never have.

It's anti-competitive bullshit that no one has had the guts to sue Apple for, because pissing off Apple means losing access to all iOS users as customers. I guess Epic is confident enough to fight this battle on behalf of everyone, probably because 1) Apple is already being investigated for anti-competitive behavior by congress and 2) Fortnite is so massively enormous that not even Apple would risk banning them from the app store for fear of losing customers.

Don't get me wrong: Apple is NOT the only tech giant guilty of anti-competitive practices, not by a long shot. But it doesn't really matter which one gets sued; as long as one of them does, it will create a legal precedent for future lawsuits against the others. I dislike Epic for a lot of reasons, but this right here is going to buy them a lot of good will from me, and likely a lot of other people.


----------



## campbell0505 (Aug 14, 2020)

How long ago did it get taken off the app store? This is my first time hearing of it getting taken off, so I assume it was today.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 14, 2020)

Noctosphere said:


> Tell me if I got it wrong please
> When an app is sold on the AppStore, Apple takes a 30% cut of the profit
> When you buy something inside an app downloaded on AppStore, Apple takes a30% cut of the profit
> 
> ...


Well its not just about Epic, its about all companies. Should Epic alone be allowed to sell outside of the appstore? Of course not. Should ALL devs be allowed to though? Yes of course. Imagine if Microsoft made an official windows appstore and you werent allowed to sell outside of it, it doesnt just hurt big companies like Epic or Steam it affects everyone. If the court rules that Apple isnt allowed to force devs to sell through their store it will benefit all devs.


----------



## bobmcjr (Aug 14, 2020)

If you take their statement at face value, and they actually pursue that specific cause, I am 100% behind Epic. I doubt they'll get anywhere, but if the end result is easy sideloading on iOS, that's the best possible outcome.

If Microsoft got called out for monopolistic practices in the '90s for including a web browser, "walled garden" ecosystems on general-purpose devices like smartphones should also fall under scrutiny.


----------



## whateverg1012 (Aug 14, 2020)

Since Google removed their app is Epic gonna sue them too? Don't think they can handle lawsuits against two giants.

Edit: looks like Epic knew Apple was gonna remove their app and was prepared to sue Apple all along, even made it some sort of "movement," but then Google also booted their app so idk how their plan is going


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 14, 2020)

2 vs 1 Smackdown! 

But seriously, I doubt they are going to sue at the same time and only will sue Google, if they win against Apple. Of course, I could be wrong.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 14, 2020)

They probably wouldnt need to have big lawsuits against both anyway. If Epic won against Apple then any court would uphold the set precedent towards Google as well.


----------



## neotank19 (Aug 14, 2020)

All i can say is I never have nor ever will buy anything from apple. Open source baby. I believe the 30% fee is usury and a monopoly.


----------



## 64bitmodels (Aug 14, 2020)

hamohamo said:


> apple is the embodiment of how terrible capitalism can get.


isnt that actually google though...?


----------



## veenx0704 (Aug 14, 2020)

fuck both but I hope Epic wins


----------



## 64bitmodels (Aug 14, 2020)

either way i hope apple loses, purely so they start bleeding money
I hate monopolies with a burning passion, and apple has a giant monopoly on the tech market, which is... just stupid, especially for how much theyve been harming it (yeah lets kill headphone jacks and chargers, yay!!!)


----------



## Noctosphere (Aug 14, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Well its not just about Epic, its about all companies. Should Epic alone be allowed to sell outside of the appstore? Of course not. Should ALL devs be allowed to though? Yes of course. Imagine if Microsoft made an official windows appstore and you werent allowed to sell outside of it, it doesnt just hurt big companies like Epic or Steam it affects everyone. If the court rules that Apple isnt allowed to force devs to sell through their store it will benefit all devs.


Okay now i get it, thanks for the explanations


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 14, 2020)

In a sense, I do hope something changes from this. I don't have much faith that it will.


----------



## C_rbn (Aug 14, 2020)

Huh


----------



## Tiger21820 (Aug 14, 2020)




----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 14, 2020)

Apple and gaming don't mix, who buys their overpriced garbage just to play games? Also Fortnite is overrated as hell, so I see no loss.


----------



## Jonna (Aug 14, 2020)

the_randomizer said:


> Apple and gaming don't mix, who buys their overpriced garbage just to play games? Also Fortnite is overrated as hell, so I see no loss.


Enough people that gaming on mobile is still a feasible and profitable thing.

I mean, I understand your point and I also am not into mobile gaming at all, but just pointing out the technicality here.


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 14, 2020)

Jonna said:


> Enough people that gaming on mobile is still a feasible and profitable thing.
> 
> I mean, I understand your point and I also am not into mobile gaming at all, but just pointing out the technicality here.



Mobile games would suck less without having to use touchscreen controls


----------



## Jonna (Aug 14, 2020)

the_randomizer said:


> Mobile games would suck less without having to use touchscreen controls


Agreed. That's why I use a Bluetooth controller that pressures the sides onto the phone like a Switch. And that's mainly when I'm bored and not at home. And even then, I just play emulators.


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 14, 2020)

tim is just a cry baby. if I were a company selling mac and cheese in a store and then set up a cashier to circumvent the stores payment options so I get all the money It would be deemed illegal


----------



## eriol33 (Aug 14, 2020)

gamers should support epic games. They are trying to break the monopoly from the big publishers.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



neotank19 said:


> All i can say is I never have nor ever will buy anything from apple. Open source baby. I believe the 30% fee is usury and a monopoly.


this is also the reason I am not interested buying any apple products.


----------



## Prans (Aug 14, 2020)

Epic is going against Google as well. Post has been updated with this info.


----------



## PatrickD85 (Aug 14, 2020)

Welll that escalated even faster then I initially thought.

But this goes to show it's all a MONEY game. Nothing about this has anything to do with the game aspect anymore.
People should never forget; APPLE, GOOGLE and EPIC are companies ... and they are in it to make as much money as possible. The game, the players all of the things you could think of come after that.

Harsh ... maybe.
True, you damn right it's true.


----------



## MiiJack (Aug 14, 2020)

now I can't predict how this will turn out, what will happen if Epic wins (Can they even win this)? Will they be the only exempted of the 30%, will all indie devs also be exempted? Will this lead to a rise of IAP everywhere?
What will happen if Epic loses? Will they be banned on all platform they tried to bypass the 30%? Will they just accept the 30% pay the rest and move on?


----------



## eriol33 (Aug 14, 2020)

MiiJack said:


> now I can't predict how this will turn out, what will happen if Epic wins (Can they even win this)? Will they be the only exempted of the 30%, will all indie devs also be exempted? Will this lead to a rise of IAP everywhere?
> What will happen if Epic loses? Will they be banned on all platform they tried to bypass the 30%? Will they just accept the 30% pay the rest and move on?


If epic wins it means developers could add another payment option to process their transaction so more choice for the customers


----------



## Xzi (Aug 14, 2020)

eriol33 said:


> If epic wins it means developers could add another payment option to process their transaction so more choice for the customers


Ideally, sure.  Realistically, Tencent has a hold over a very large segment of the mobile gaming market, and no reason to let that go.  So should Epic somehow win these lawsuits, I'd bet money on their next move being the launch of the "Tencent App Store" or the "Epic Mobile Games Store," where they get a cut of every sale and in-app purchase (but a lesser cut than Google or Apple takes, ooh how generous ).

Granted, developers would no longer be required to list their games on any of the new "big three," but they'd also be exponentially less likely to find any sort of success without using at least one of them.  So remember kids: Epic says duopoly = bad, but triopoly = good.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Aug 14, 2020)

hope epic loses big time. about time they learned they can't do whatever the fuck they want and FADnite is just an overrated shit game for little kids and should not be worshiped.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

diggeloid said:


> You got it wrong. Apple is the one who is not treating developers fairly. They never have.



But treating devs fairly does not make them a monopoly/anti-trust. They may have an almost abusive deal, but nothing's FORCING them to go to that market other than themselves. There's still the Android, PC, and Console Markets. Ergo, there's no monopoly, and the deal was there clear as day.



> It's anti-competitive bullshit that no one has had the guts to sue Apple for, because pissing off Apple means losing access to all iOS users as customers.



Ooor they could just be on a different phone type and thus fans of the iOS would have less reason to BE an Apple customer and swap over to Android, etc. That's still a competitive market. There's nothing wrong with being on every console EXCEPT one. See: Nintendo, which usually IS the odd-man out when games are multi-platform.



> I guess Epic is confident enough to fight this battle on behalf of everyone, probably because 1) Apple is already being investigated for anti-competitive behavior by congress and 2) Fortnite is so massively enormous that not even Apple would risk banning them from the app store for fear of losing customers.



Apple can live without fortnite. Fortnite/Epic can exist without Apple. This is just about greed on both ends. The issue however is "Apple's getting a share, and we want the whole pie despite agreeing to the share".



> Don't get me wrong: Apple is NOT the only tech giant guilty of anti-competitive practices, not by a long shot.



But nothing about how they handle their store is, in itself, anti-competitive. People seem to forget that a 'market' does not limit itself to one's own phones. When this is taken to court, the argument will be taken, rightfully, that there are NON-APPLE PHONES ON THE MARKET.

Apple may be assholes who don't let you benefit from non-Apple approved content, yes, but in that respect the original NES could be considered a monopoly because it couldn't play ATARI games. Or the PS4 is a monopoly because it don't let you play XBox 1 Disks/games. But that isn't how it works. This is different software covering the same market - the Mobile market. Making it harder to enter their market isn't anti-trust, nor is it a monopoly. They do not force you to "Apple or Bust".

In any and all approaches legally, while it is SCUMMY, it is NOT illegal or monopolistic.



> But it doesn't really matter which one gets sued; as long as one of them does, it will create a legal precedent for future lawsuits against the others. I dislike Epic for a lot of reasons, but this right here is going to buy them a lot of good will from me, and likely a lot of other people.





eriol33 said:


> gamers should support epic games. They are trying to break the monopoly from the big publishers.


You realize Epic is underneath Tencent, which is literally attempting to form a monopoly of games by buying majority stockholdership of countless countries game development studios, or at least enough to have a major say in the control of the companies, right? Tencent is the literal monopoly, and Epic is one of their puppets that they own 40% of. If you honestly think that there isn't 11% of the remaining 60% (that's 18% of the remnants btw, not even a majority) who will agree with Tencent in MOST scenarios, then you don't know how stupid people can be.

I said it before: while neither are 'good', what Apple is doing is NOT AGAINST CURRENT LAW, and all aspects of current law clearly establish this.

*When this is taken to court, they are not going to rewrite law to make people or even Epic feel better about their views. They are going to be enforcing the law based on the current written law, which is, as I've stated, a fairly OPEN-SHUT CASE in favor of Apple. The only way this goes in Epic's favor is a corrupt judge.
*
Laws need to be changed before anything Apple does (beyond their Right-To-Repair arguments) is strictly against the law (and even then, Right to Repair laws need to be rewritten slightly just because of how Apple handles their "Right to Repair" approaches.


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 14, 2020)

J-Machine said:


> tim is just a cry baby. if I were a company selling mac and cheese in a store and then set up a cashier to circumvent the stores payment options so I get all the money It would be deemed illegal


The analogy has a flaw.

If there was only 1 franchise of stores in the world, would that be considered a monopoly? The one company owns all the stores in the world, and they force everyone to buy from them or go through them for sales. That's what's happening with Apple and their iOS devices. They are forcing people to only buy through their store, and will not allow any 'competition' unless they get a cut of it. There were companies that tried to do that in the past, and even Microsoft attempted that back in the early days of the Internet, trying to grab control and be the sole provider of computers within a geographic region. They got in serious trouble for that, so they had to branch out and stop stifling competing stores. Apple is doing that in a digital market. They can claim they are doing it to ensure the integrity of all of their apps, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to break Antitrust Laws.



VartioArtel said:


> But treating devs fairly does not make them a monopoly/anti-trust. They may have an almost abusive deal, but nothing's FORCING them to go to that market other than themselves. There's still the Android, PC, and Console Markets. Ergo, there's no monopoly, and the deal was there clear as day.



That is a good point, that there are other devices, but again these are different methods of markets. Apple is controlling what goes through their method of market with an iron will, while the others have more freedom, to some extend. Android you can install from other sources besides just Google Play, PC you have Steam and MS Store and other places. But Apple iOS? You don't have any options. It's either Apple or nothing. Comparing Apple's App Store to Android's various methods of App installation is essentially comparing Apples to Oranges and peaches and pears and grapes. They both have similar features, but are not the identical enough to be considered the exact same.

Now at the end of the day the question outside of AntiTrust questions is how will this affect Epic and Apple? If this goes on long enough, Apple might find that their millions of iOS owners will go to Android because they can still play Fortnight through there. Will Epic's revenue stream be affected by this? Not as much as it would affect Apple if people aren't willing to have both devices, especially if people can just as easily do stuff on Android as they did on their iOS device. There will be a lot of Apple iFans who will remain dedicated to Apple, even if they lose Fortnight, but it'll still hit Apple harder than Epic.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> That is a good point, that there are other devices, but again these are different methods of markets. Apple is controlling what goes through their method of market with an iron will



You seem to misunderstand a "market" from a "platform".

What Apple has constitutes as a "platform". To put it in relative terms, think of it like the CONSOLE GAMES MARKET. Each console counts as a 'platform' in the "Console Games Market" (here-in referred to as the CGM). 

What they are doing is, within their platform, they are establishing what can be hosted tightly. This would be akin to Playstation refusing certain games/developers.




> while the others have more freedom, to some extend. Android you can install from other sources besides just Google Play, PC you have Steam and MS Store and other places. But Apple iOS? You don't have any options. It's either Apple or nothing. Comparing Apple's App Store to Android's various methods of App installation is essentially comparing Apples to Oranges and peaches and pears and grapes. They both have similar features, but are not the identical enough to be considered the exact same.



Using my earlier example, the CGM isn't much different. No console can really install from other sources. No console can use disks (programs) from other consoles. This argument isn't even fallacious when referring to how the Switch don't use disks - the XB1 and PS4 both basically use the same Disks, but what differs is the code on those disks preventing use without their own proprietary consoles. 

Likewise, swap almost anything you said about Apple to Switch.

Here:

"Xbox games you can install from other sources besides just the Microsoft store, MS Store and other places. But Switch? You don't have any options. It's either the Nintendo Store or nothing. Comparing Nintendo's Store to X-Box's various methods of App installation is essentially comparing Apples to Oranges and peaches and pears and grapes. They both have similar features, but are not the identical enough to be considered the exact same."

(Remember - Microsoft ATM is supporting Xbox games being PC compatible on launch now, or so I comprehended that news).

*I realize this analogy's not perfect, but it should get the point across to a similar, relatable system we're familiar to.*

If we say that Apple/Google are "Monopolies" or "Anti-Trusts", we would be by proxy claiming all gaming consoles are the same, because of exactly how the markets work. Replace a type of Cell Phone with PC, PS4, XB1, or Switch, and voila, you get the same exact issues of the same programs/games being hosted on different 'consoles'/Phone Types. 

Not as simple as you thought huh?



> Now at the end of the day the question outside of AntiTrust questions is how will this affect Epic and Apple? If this goes on long enough, Apple might find that their millions of iOS owners will go to Android because they can still play Fortnight through there. Will Epic's revenue stream be affected by this? Not as much as it would affect Apple if people aren't willing to have both devices, especially if people can just as easily do stuff on Android as they did on their iOS device. There will be a lot of Apple iFans who will remain dedicated to Apple, even if they lose Fortnight, but it'll still hit Apple harder than Epic.



If the millions leave Apple for Android, fine. I don't care. But the fact is that what Epic is doing *is *the true Anti-Trust here. Why? Because they just broke 2 terms of service agreements in one day because it didn't favor them. If that isn't anti-trust, what is, by definition? I expect some extreme issues rising from this.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 14, 2020)

the_randomizer said:


> Apple and gaming don't mix, who buys their overpriced garbage just to play games? Also Fortnite is overrated as hell, so I see no loss.


Their iPad Pro is currently the only tablet that can run Dolphin at 1440p. It's got some power to it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



eriol33 said:


> gamers should support epic games. They are trying to break the monopoly from the big publishers.



That's debatable... 



Prans said:


> Epic is going against Google as well. Post has been updated with this info.



The question that's lingering on everyone's mind: Do they even have a case?


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Memoir said:


> Their iPad Pro is currently the only tablet that can run Dolphin at 1440p. It's got some power to it.


Might be a matter of coding, instead of power. Maybe it was easier to optimize to Apple, doesn't mean necessarily it's better. It's a very complex, complicated slope, seeing as computers can have trouble with older emulators and maintaining a steady framerate (when the emulation isn't set to perfectly emulate the lag-flubs of the classic consoles).



> The question that's lingering on everyone's mind: Do they even have a case?



I don't need a magic 8-Ball to tell you the answer's 'no'. They broke a ToS and immediately began to post videos for the sake of antagonizing if not defamation of Apple. That implies malevolent intent which implies bad faith.


----------



## HarveyHouston (Aug 14, 2020)

Regardless of who's at fault here, I'm glad I don't play Fortnite.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

HarvHouHacker said:


> Regardless of who's at fault here, I'm glad I don't play Fortnite.


Oh I definitely feel bad for the Fortnite crew on mobile. Stuck between rocks and hard places -.-;.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Might be a matter of coding, instead of power. Maybe it was easier to optimize to Apple, doesn't mean necessarily it's better. It's a very complex, complicated slope, seeing as computers can have trouble with older emulators and maintaining a steady framerate (when the emulation isn't set to perfectly emulate the lag-flubs of the classic consoles).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a magic 8-Ball to tell you the answer's 'no'. They broke a ToS and immediately began to post videos for the sake of antagonizing if not defamation of Apple. That implies malevolent intent which implies bad faith.



Barring optimization, the 2020 iPad Pro is objectively one of, if not THE strongest tablet on the market. It is quite the feat to see GameCube emulation (which struggles on their phones) running at that resolution without hiccups.


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> You seem to misunderstand a "market" from a "platform".
> 
> What Apple has constitutes as a "platform". To put it in relative terms, think of it like the CONSOLE GAMES MARKET. Each console counts as a 'platform' in the "Console Games Market" (here-in referred to as the CGM).
> 
> ...


I agree with virtually everything you have said, except for the last paragraph. Seriously, you have basically stated something that should have been hit on the head from the very start. Also remember that Platform would include PC, and that was once locked down to only run certain things, think the IBM BIOS for starters, but things changed there too when it was shown how much could be done if unlocked. Now what if they gave a certain open-control on consoles? Allowing home developers to make what they want, with certain restrictions? It's been done before, until they stopped doing it, for example Sony removing OtherOS and getting a Class Action as a result.

As for the final paragraph, breaking a TOS doesn't equate to breaking AntiTrust. Far from it in fact. Sometimes a TOS and EULA has clauses in it that in fact are illegal, but nobody bothers to challenge it. If people read the EULAs when they installed Epic or Origin on their PCs, they'd notice a few clauses that can easily be interpreted as "All your PC belongs to Us." That interpretation can't be enforced only because it would cause a serious legal headache for all parties involved. If someone breaks a company's TOS or EULA, then yes the company has the right to remove your license or access to their services, but that doesn't mean that someone is trying to break AntiTrust Laws. In this case they aren't trying to take away competition, they are trying to entice it, to expand upon it. Competition keeps prices from being arbitrarily inflated above what they are now, otherwise any company, Apple, Google, Valve, Epic, EA, Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo could charge 100 times more than they do now if they didn't have anyone to compete with, and nobody would have any choice in the matter.


----------



## CTR640 (Aug 14, 2020)

This is like Trump vs Hillary lol


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> As for the final paragraph, breaking a TOS doesn't equate to breaking AntiTrust. Far from it in fact. Sometimes a TOS and EULA has clauses in it that in fact are illegal, but nobody bothers to challenge it. If people read the EULAs when they installed Epic or Origin on their PCs, they'd notice a few clauses that can easily be interpreted as "All your PC belongs to Us." That interpretation can't be enforced only because it would cause a serious legal headache for all parties involved. If someone breaks a company's TOS or EULA, then yes the company has the right to remove your license or access to their services, but that doesn't mean that someone is trying to break AntiTrust Laws. In this case they aren't trying to take away competition, they are trying to entice it, to expand upon it. Competition keeps prices from being arbitrarily inflated above what they are now, otherwise any company, Apple, Google, Valve, Epic, EA, Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo could charge 100 times more than they do now if they didn't have anyone to compete with, and nobody would have any choice in the matter.


True on all fronts. I suppose that is a misstep on my part. However:



> In this case they aren't trying to take away competition, they are trying to entice it, to expand upon it.



I disagree here. It is my expectation this is a setup for a Huawei or similar chinese-affiliated platform that will be deemed the "Epic Store", in an attempt to form an 'innocent monopoly". And they're trying to use this whole situation to gaslight their fans in preparation for this CCP-aligned store so when they join, they are giving away their money to the CCP with a smile.

Why else would they host that 1984tnite video? The timing implies the whole situation was intentional. The attempt to throw the parallels to 1984 (which the average kid don't even know, but that they're using on kids is in itself terrifying) is also intentional. They're attempting to pull a hella stunt here to destroy the competition in some manner. How, I am not aware of yet. But getting the people on their side seems a given.


----------



## GbaNober (Aug 14, 2020)

It's a Bloody war for sure


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> I disagree here. It is my expectation this is a setup for a Huawei or similar chinese-affiliated platform that will be deemed the "Epic Store", in an attempt to form an 'innocent monopoly". And they're trying to use this whole situation to gaslight their fans in preparation for this CCP-aligned store so when they join, they are giving away their money to the CCP with a smile.
> 
> Why else would they host that 1984tnite video? The timing implies the whole situation was intentional. The attempt to throw the parallels to 1984 (which the average kid don't even know, but that they're using on kids is in itself terrifying) is also intentional. They're attempting to pull a hella stunt here to destroy the competition in some manner. How, I am not aware of yet. But getting the people on their side seems a given.


I'd say there's a stretch in the logic there. Agreed it's super apparent that this was intentional, but again I don't see how this is trying to get rid of competition. I agree that being forced into the Apple TOS does prevent them from becoming a monopoly, but it's a big stretch to say they are trying to shut down one monopoly so they replace it with one they don't have, and not to mention they aren't trying to force Apple to get rid of the Apple App Store or force Google to get rid of the Play Store.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> I'd say there's a stretch in the logic there. Agreed it's super apparent that this was intentional, but again I don't see how this is trying to get rid of competition. I agree that being forced into the Apple TOS does prevent them from becoming a monopoly, but it's a big stretch to say they are trying to shut down one monopoly so they replace it with one they don't have, and not to mention they aren't trying to force Apple to get rid of the Apple App Store or force Google to get rid of the Play Store.



You claim that there's a monopoly where, blatantly, there isn't. As stated earlier: Nothing Apple does constitutes a monopoly except for MAYBE refusing the right to repair. We've established that the Mobile Gaming Market has competition, and they do nothing to stifle away from the competition, if anything their actions SUPPORT the competition by putting such a huge 'tax' on the funds purchased.

Also again there's the presence of "Innocent" Monopolies. A monopoly that isn't illegal formed simply by having such a huge userbase just by the quality and/or price of their product, limited quality of a product, etc. This is exactly what I expect Tencent/Epic to be aiming for. They plan to shame the competition, make people believe they're corrupt, greed(ier than them), etc etc. They want to turn people against the current status quo and worship them. Then they will form an 'innocent monopoly' using their own service (or platform, if they make an Epic Games Store for mobile) that will cut out that %age fee to the likes of Apple/Google. If they go with the mobile EGS, they will then offer a platform that doesn't take as large a cut like they attempt(ed) to do with the PC EGS did to combat Steam. This will attempt to form an 'Innocent Monopoly'.

Remember what I said: "Fascists (which Communism is *extremely* similar to) are fond of convincing you they're on your side, so when they win, you're eating out of the palm of their hand".

You have to remember that you're dealing with businessmen. They're usually thinking a few steps ahead on profits in the long term. Having a video prepared in advance to sway the people, namely using 1984 as a basis, is a clear sign of this. They are bringing to action these court cases before they even start. They *want* this to involve the community in some way.


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> You claim that there's a monopoly where, blatantly, there isn't. As stated earlier: Nothing Apple does constitutes a monopoly except for MAYBE refusing the right to repair. We've established that the Mobile Gaming Market has competition, and they do nothing to stifle away from the competition, if anything their actions SUPPORT the competition by putting such a huge 'tax' on the funds purchased.


This statement is fair and valid. I admit I didn't consider that part of the argument.



VartioArtel said:


> Also again there's the presence of "Innocent" Monopolies. A monopoly that isn't illegal formed simply by having such a huge userbase just by the quality and/or price of their product, limited quality of a product, etc. This is exactly what I expect Tencent/Epic to be aiming for. They plan to shame the competition, make people believe they're corrupt, greed(ier than them), etc etc. They want to turn people against the current status quo and worship them. Then they will form an 'innocent monopoly' using their own service (or platform, if they make an Epic Games Store for mobile) that will cut out that %age fee to the likes of Apple/Google. If they go with the mobile EGS, they will then offer a platform that doesn't take as large a cut like they attempt(ed) to do with the PC EGS did to combat Steam. This will attempt to form an 'Innocent Monopoly'.


This is actually a slipper slope argument. Just because they will try to entice people to go to their store front on the promise of more profit doesn't mean everyone will do that. We've already seen that on the PC Platform with a few Indie Developers. Who's to say the same won't be true on Mobile, that people won't go to EGS? Heck, a TOS amendment on Apple and Google could say that they can't sell games directly on their mobile platform, only let them handle purchases more directly without paying a surcharge for processing by Apple/Google. Though interestingly enough I believe Square Enix's FF Launcher does that, but has to use Apple/Google as a payment middleman. EGS could be barred from selling games directly, but not from handling in-game transactions, which from the initial argument is what Epic wanted. Anything more is purely speculation.



VartioArtel said:


> Remember what I said: "Fascists (which Communism is *extremely* similar to) are fond of convincing you they're on your side, so when they win, you're eating out of the palm of their hand".
> 
> You have to remember that you're dealing with businessmen. They're usually thinking a few steps ahead on profits in the long term. Having a video prepared in advance to sway the people, namely using 1984 as a basis, is a clear sign of this. They are bringing to action these court cases before they even start. They *want* this to involve the community in some way.


I'm familiar with that, and I agree. They are people who claim to be fighting for others when they're really only in it for themselves. But then one could argue that's already happening with practically every company, claiming to be the good guys and everyone else is bad, and will try to get public opinion swayed in their favor. It's done with politics too. This is all one Big Ol' Cluster F*** where no matter what side is taken, the public is actually losing. The question is how badly do we want to lose, and how good are we at figuring out how?


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> This statement is fair and valid. I admit I didn't consider that part of the argument.



Always good to have a good discussion where both sides listen.




> This is actually a slipper slope argument. Just because they will try to entice people to go to their store front on the promise of more profit doesn't mean everyone will do that. We've already seen that on the PC Platform with a few Indie Developers. Who's to say the same won't be true on Mobile, that people won't go to EGS? Heck, a TOS amendment on Apple and Google could say that they can't sell games directly on their mobile platform, only let them handle purchases more directly without paying a surcharge for processing by Apple/Google. Though interestingly enough I believe Square Enix's FF Launcher does that, but has to use Apple/Google as a payment middleman. EGS could be barred from selling games directly, but not handling in-game transactions, which from the initial argument is what Epic wanted. Anything more is purely speculation.



Oh I agree it's a Slippery Slope argument. But it don't change it's likely what they're aiming for. Afterall look how aggressively they're trying to pull from steam by pushing so many exclusivity deals and a history of "Exclusive with us, or don't get on our platform at all".



> I'm familiar with that, and I agree. They are people who claim to be fighting for others when they're really only in it for themselves. But then one could argue that's already happening with practically every company, claiming to be the good guys and everyone else is bad, and will try to get public opinion swayed in their favor. It's done with politics too. This is all one Big Ol' Cluster F*** where no matter what side is taken, the public is actually losing. The question is how badly do we want to lose, and how good are we at figuring out how?


Again agreed. No matter how this goes we're screwed. Personally I feel the Mobile Market in its entirety is a mistake.

I've always been of the opinion capitalism is a mistake. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but that there needs to be tighter taxing/rules on them so that they can't hoard as much money or improper distribution of money, improper management of staff, etc. There's only so much money combined in the world, yet somehow companies expect perpetually expanding profits. I'm tired of hearing of good developers/studios cut off but the CEO and his inner circle getting (or nearly getting) massive pay raises...


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 14, 2020)

Isn't the best scenario is that they win then it backfires, and they are also investigated for antitrust?


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> I've always been of the opinion capitalism is a mistake. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but that there needs to be tighter taxing/rules on them so that they can't hoard as much money or improper distribution of money, improper management of staff, etc. There's only so much money combined in the world, yet somehow companies expect perpetually expanding profits. I'm tired of hearing of good developers/studios cut off but the CEO and his inner circle getting (or nearly getting) massive pay raises...


I would have to disagree that capitalism is a mistake. On it's own, in it's purist ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness. Building an empire so you can have dominion over everything the sun shines on is selfish, but building an empire for the people to thrive and flourish together, to be able to grow and build, is not. Capitalism is a physical drive that without utter greed and selfishness would work pretty well. Wanting to make money so you can build things to help others isn't bad, but wanting to charge 5 times as much as it costs to make something is when that money isn't used to build up something else. And more taxing might get in the way of that, however better defined rules wouldn't. We know how bad things can get when an industry refuses to regulate itself (EA's Surprise Mechanics ring any bells?).


----------



## ccfman2004 (Aug 14, 2020)

All in-app purchases whether it's from Apple, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Android must go through them and they all take a cut so why is Apple and Google being singled out here?  With iOS it's extremely difficult to get malware installed as everything goes through Apple first.  The few malware apps that didn't get detected at first were quickly removed.  With Google allowing out-of-store installs you run the risk of installing malware.  I tried Android once and went back to iOS as I found it much faster on a less powerful device than Android.

Epic Games knew full well they were violating an agreement they accepted.  Fortnite is on basically every platform and they happily pay Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for each in-app purchase yet oppose Apple and Google for doing the same.


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 14, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Isn't the best scenario is that they win then it backfires, and they are also investigated for antitrust?


That would be ironic and something fun to watch, though obviously have to hope everyone learns an important lesson in the end.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



ccfman2004 said:


> All in-app purchases whether it's from Apple, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Android must go through them and they all take a cut so why is Apple and Google being singled out here?  With iOS it's extremely difficult to get malware installed as everything goes through Apple first.  The few malware apps that didn't get detected at first were quickly removed.  With Google allowing out-of-store installs you run the risk of installing malware.  I tried Android once and went back to iOS as I found it much faster on a less powerful device than Android.
> 
> Epic Games knew full well they were violating an agreement they accepted.  Fortnite is on basically every platform and they happily pay Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for each in-app purchase yet oppose Apple and Google for doing the same.


Because they are the only big players in the Mobile Market, with Windows Phone and Blackberry being rarely heard of these days. However it could easily be seen that this would also affect consoles.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> I would have to disagree that capitalism is a mistake. On it's own, in it's purist ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness. Building an empire so you can have dominion over everything the sun shines on is selfish, but building an empire for the people to thrive and flourish together, to be able to grow and build, is not. Capitalism is a physical drive that without utter greed and selfishness would work pretty well. Wanting to make money so you can build things to help others isn't bad, but wanting to charge 5 times as much as it costs to make something is when that money isn't used to build up something else. And more taxing might get in the way of that, however better defined rules wouldn't. We know how bad things can get when an industry refuses to regulate itself (EA's Surprise Mechanics ring any bells?).



You realize you gave the same exact argument's given for communism, right?

"In it's purest ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness".

Literally the arguments given to why communism isn't bad. Doesn't mean it's the *right* way. When something is that easy to abuse, then by practice it's counterproductive and not that good. We can strive for an ideal, but the ideal itself is not practical due to abuseability as it presumes too much in faithful and honest utilization of the ideal. But humans don't work that way.

I understand your point otherwise, but it don't change that you're expecting the best in people. I'm a realist, and Capitalism, while a lofty ideal, is not a practical one due to its abuseability.


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> You realize you gave the same exact argument's given for communism, right?
> 
> "In it's purest ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness".
> 
> ...


We are completely on the same page about that. It describes really any and all forms of economic and political/government structures. The ideal is pure, but is impractical due to the corruption of the people enacting it. Now we should probably halt these discussions as we have segways far away from the original topic about Epic vs Apple. Agreed?


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> We are completely on the same page about that. It describes really any and all forms of economic and political/government structures. The ideal is pure, but is impractical due to the corruption of the people enacting it. Now we should probably halt these discussions as we have segways far away from the original topic about Epic vs Apple. Agreed?


Edit in: Well more than anything, it's used almost worldwide about Communism, more so than most other governments. This is because Communism lacks the checks and balances other governments have.

Agreed.


----------



## Shape (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Here's my honest thoughts on this case excluding what I posted earlier:
> 
> A company is allowed to NOT host their IP on an apple device. Apple is likewise allowed to require a 'hosting fee', disgusting as it is.
> 
> ...



While I generally agree with you, apple's 30% cut is excessive for their company's size. There are several ways this can shake out in Epic's favor thag DO NOT upend our country's laws. In fact, when a contract is found to be 1. Illegal or 2. Without proper intent, a court can ammend the terms of that contract.

However, I still generally agree with you here. I think that any positive outcome for epic would entail... Well first a mud slinging competition, and then a settlement to universally drop apples cuts by 3 to 8 percent. Realistically, though, this case probably won't even see a court.

Additionally, it's probably just PR tactics to get epic more exposure. Even bad publicity is publicity and the fees for a case like this (ESP. If you have no intention of winning and damages are NOT involved) is going to be exponentially less than an ad campaign.


----------



## yoyoyo69 (Aug 14, 2020)

yusuo said:


> This should be interesting, it's not David vs goliath, it's goliath vs goliath. Both have very deep pockets and can litigate this with the most expensive lawyers money can buy.
> 
> I hope epic win as it would set a precedent and ultimately help the smallest developers get a bigger piece of the pie



Epic are no small indie dev, but Apple dwarf them .

I'm not too much against Epic, they have done some bad things, but Apple a re the typical evil conglomerate, it's like they aim to fulfil the typical stereotype.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Shape said:


> While I generally agree with you, apple's 30% cut is excessive for their company's size. There are several ways this can shake out in Epic's favor thag DO NOT upend our country's laws. In fact, when a contract is found to be 1. Illegal or 2. Without proper intent, a court can ammend the terms of that contract.
> 
> However, I still generally agree with you here. I think that any positive outcome for epic would entail... Well first a mud slinging competition, and then a settlement to universally drop apples cuts by 3 to 8 percent. Realistically, though, this case probably won't even see a court.
> 
> Additionally, it's probably just PR tactics to get epic more exposure. Even bad publicity is publicity and the fees for a case like this (ESP. If you have no intention of winning and damages are NOT involved) is going to be exponentially less than an ad campaign.


I agree 30% is excessive, but again, it's sadly not *illegal*. That one word is what matters here. They're going to try to claim anti-trust or the sort, but there's absolutely no grounds. If Google+Apple knows what they're doing, they will fight this for every penny Epic's worth and then some. They can sue for the attorney's fees easily considering how frivilous this case is.

I am not saying Apple is moral, even now. I am saying in this case, the way to beat them would be to ostracize them. To legally break off from the company, NOT sue them like a child, and then to build up your own platform/etc legally and win without cheap tactics. You need to offer non-Apple Phone Apps/Games that are stellar enough that Apple people choose intentionally to abandon Apple phones just due to the quality/etc.

The game companies themselves need to check their greed too, focus on moral choices like denying Apple their greed.

But that's the problem: greed. People will keep going to apple because it has a userbase. Until companies stop going to apple, until people move off Apple, you really can't stop them because for now *they're too big to fail*. They have most of the legal loopholes covered so you can't sue them without intense difficulty and very specific niches anyhow. At most, you can introduce/change laws, but it ultimately won't  matter. They'll find new loopholes that are entirely within the laws. The only real solution is to stop using apple.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 14, 2020)

I don't think they are going to get anywhere suing Google for antitrust. They may not allow 3rd party app stores to be hosted on Google Play but they don't disallow people installing 3rd party app stores on their devices, similarly you may not be able to run 3rd party in app purchases via a Play Store app but no one is stopping you from running 3rd party purchases via a website rather than directly in the app, or hosting the app on a separate website or app store where you don't have those restrictions. It's just about disallowing things they don't agree with on their own service, which they are in their full right to do as a service is a privilege and not a right - they are not trying to control what you can and can't do on your device like Apple are.

In the end, whether Epic or Apple wins, we win either way, because fuck both of them. 
Google >>>>>> Epic Games though.


----------



## hamohamo (Aug 14, 2020)

64bitmodels said:


> isnt that actually google though...?


Apple is exploiting the stupidness of people to get their money despite their products being subpar. Google is providing a an enormous shitton of life changing services for free and made android which is open-source.


----------



## ccfman2004 (Aug 14, 2020)

Epic has to pay Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for all in-app purchases too and there is no way around that either.  Not sure what Sony or Nintendo charge but Microsoft charges the same 30% that Apple and Google charge.


----------



## Snintendog (Aug 14, 2020)

Honestly Just best case scenario Epic finally dies and china is banned from operating any business in the world.


----------



## diggeloid (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> But treating devs fairly does not make them a monopoly/anti-trust. They may have an almost abusive deal, but nothing's FORCING them to go to that market other than themselves. There's still the Android, PC, and Console Markets. Ergo, there's no monopoly, and the deal was there clear as day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The issue is a lot more complicated than what you're interpreting it as, and you clearly have some misunderstanding of at least how lawsuits work, if not the relevant facts here. I get that you hate Epic (I do too), but you're allowing your emotions to make you ignorant.

The existence of Android does not mean Apple doesn't engage in anti-competitive practices, or own multiple monopolies in various industries. They do, and they have done so for a very long time. There are many years of evidence, many instances of competitors getting screwed over. This is a long history which you would need to research and learn about yourself to understand the context of this lawsuit, and I'm fairly confident you haven't done that research (which is perfectly understandable, since there's no reason for most people to bother with that).

But in my case, I am a developer who has been dealing with Apple's (and other tech giants) bullshit for over a decade, and I have first-hand experience with their ruthless anti-competitive behaviors and practices. These are causing major harm to the various multi-billion-dollar industries they control, are stifling competition and innovation, and as a result are harming consumers and the economy of the United States and the rest of the world. Epic is doing a good job of illustrating that harm by showing how they can offer a 20% discount across the board if Apple/Google lower their excessive 30% commission. That is a major, tangible benefit to the consumer that will serve as an excellent example in the lawsuit.


My only fear here is that the current political situation could fuck this up. With the US thinking about banning TikTok, WeChat, and other Chinese spyware, this move from Epic could be seen as an attempt by the Chinese government (through Tencent) to circumvent the ban by distributing those apps through their own appstore on iOS and Android. I don't know whether or not that is true, but I don't care, personally. Chinese giants like Tencent are propped up by government money and backing (through corporate espionage and similar). Even if they get a strong share of American industries in the short term, in the long term, American innovation will win. It always has, and it always will. And as long as there is room for competition, free market forces will allow us to continue to invent and innovate.

But as it stands, we're moving at the beat of Apple's drum (and Google's/Microsoft's/Facebook's/Amazon's/etc).


----------



## Viri (Aug 14, 2020)

Cannot stand either company, and I think Google is getting way too fucking big. It's pretty scary how much power Google has. So, I am rooting for Epic, even though I cannot stand them as a company.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

diggeloid said:


> The issue is a lot more complicated than what you're interpreting it as, and you clearly have some misunderstanding of at least how lawsuits work, if not the relevant facts here. I get that you hate Epic (I do too), but you're allowing your emotions to make you ignorant.



I hate just about every company nowadays. Apple and Epic both are on my "Forbidden List". I shall not pay a penny to them, I forbid my family to the best of my ability from funding either. They're up there with Gamestop, Bethesda, EA, and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head but I damn well would seeing the company name.

That you're implying that my pov is 'biased' is attempting to discredit my view based on your own personal bias in favor of Epic. Case in point, throughout this whole topic I've made it a point that I hate Apple every darn bit as much. Yet somehow, you zero in on the idea my hatred for Epic in particular is exceptional. This is the furthest thing from the truth.



> The existence of Android does not mean Apple doesn't engage in anti-competitive practices, or own multiple monopolies in various industries. They do, and they have done so for a very long time. There are many years of evidence, many instances of competitors getting screwed over. This is a long history which you would need to research and learn about yourself to understand the context of this lawsuit, and I'm fairly confident you haven't done that research (which is perfectly understandable, since there's no reason for most people to bother with that).



A *monopoly* is a structure in which a single supplier produces and sells a given product or service. If there is a single seller in a certain market and there are no close substitutes for the product, then the market structure is that of a "pure *monopoly*".

Is Apple the only seller of mobile games? No.
Is it the only one who provides a platform (service) to host mobile games on? No.
Are they the sort to conflict with competition? Yes. They will attempt to shut down any competition within their rights. As I have gone over, they have a horrible history with Right to Repair, yet as the law stands now, they are protected although that is changing.

There are *two* key points established to determine a monopoly:

A monopoly exists when there is only one producer and many consumers.
Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.
Neither of these points can be distinguished as Apple.

Furthermore with some basic investigation into the subject of what the federal government deems a monopoly, the Sherman act covers:

(1) anticompetitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market

Apple does not fall under 1. They are not forming agreements with other companies to shut out Google entirely.

And 2 we both know without a doubt Google isn't moving the goalpost in their favor.





> But in my case, I am a developer who has been dealing with Apple's (and other tech giants) bullshit for over a decade, and I have first-hand experience with their ruthless anti-competitive behaviors and practices.



I honestly don't buy this. It may be true, but anyone can claim "I am X working for Y". I can claim I'm Chris Barrett working for Bungie, and you couldn't really *prove* that without his aide (although "I" might be lying just to make the trail run cold that way).

Also, many companies will claim that a business' practices are anti-competitive simply because they can't win. A Ma and Pa shop cannot compete with a Walmart due to the scale of connections and resources the company has. This doesn't on its own necessarily make Walmart an anti-trust, as an example. Likewise, it's rare for an average or low level development to hold its own vs Apple due to similar issues - more/more experienced coders, for example. Being able to get assistance/deals with multiple company leaders. As long as they aren't making deals forbidding the aide/business with a competitor, then honestly it's not a monopoly.




> These are causing major harm to the various multi-billion-dollar industries they control, are stifling competition and innovation, and as a result are harming consumers and the economy of the United States and the rest of the world. Epic is doing a good job of illustrating that harm by showing how they can offer a 20% discount across the board if Apple/Google lower their excessive 30% commission. That is a major, tangible benefit to the consumer that will serve as an excellent example in the lawsuit.



The 30% Commission is more or less the industry standard.

https://www.analysisgroup.com/globa...etplaces_a_comparison_of_commission_rates.pdf

Bottom of Page 5:


> Table 1: Commission Rates for Select App Stores
> Google Play Store | 30% (15% for subscriptions after 12 months)
> 
> Amazon Appstore | 30% (20% for video streaming subscriptions)
> ...



This is not a 'monopoly'. It is the standard. For someone who was coming here, calling me 'ignorant' for an implied bias of hatred against Apple, you did little to none of the studying. I don't even *need* to continue this discussion, with this lot alone, I've proven that you attempted to gaslight the people of this community by trying to convince them that Apple/google somehow are the villains and sole group that holds this 30% commission rate. Not only that, you attempted to convince these people that my views were ignorant on the matter. The difference between you and me? I was ignorant before posting this, and still did my due diligence. You didn't.


----------



## diggeloid (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> I hate just about every company nowadays. Apple and Epic both are on my "Forbidden List". I shall not pay a penny to them, I forbid my family to the best of my ability from funding either. They're up there with Gamestop, Bethesda, EA, and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head but I damn well would seeing the company name.
> 
> That you're implying that my pov is 'biased' is attempting to discredit my view based on your own personal bias in favor of Epic. Case in point, throughout this whole topic I've made it a point that I hate Apple every darn bit as much. Yet somehow, you zero in on the idea my hatred for Epic in particular is exceptional. This is the furthest thing from the truth.
> 
> ...



I clearly wasted my time...


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

diggeloid said:


> I clearly wasted my time...


Clearly I wasted mine as you proved my point. I provided proof, links, etc to my statements. You posted things and expect us to believe you with no proof at all? Because it's you? Get over yourself. You want to come to an argument you bring proof. Your real identity means nothing, if it does, you'll know where to go to get any evidence you need to make your case.

I am not some sheep, I do not need a shepherd. What I need is evidence to make my own decisions without you telling me what to think. If your evidence is strong enough, you will change my logic. If you cannot provide enough evidence, then I will call you out on trying to gaslight.

Edit: The only time one needs to give an opinion is when two people debate the same source of evidence and its purpose. Case in point: the intent of the 1984tnite video. I have had a few debates on it now, and made my point on its intent. So I believe in common debating circles the term here is "Show me the Carfax"?


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 14, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> I hate just about every company nowadays. Apple and Epic both are on my "Forbidden List". I shall not pay a penny to them, I forbid my family to the best of my ability from funding either. They're up there with Gamestop, Bethesda, EA, and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head but I damn well would seeing the company name.
> 
> That you're implying that my pov is 'biased' is attempting to discredit my view based on your own personal bias in favor of Epic. Case in point, throughout this whole topic I've made it a point that I hate Apple every darn bit as much. Yet somehow, you zero in on the idea my hatred for Epic in particular is exceptional. This is the furthest thing from the truth.
> 
> ...




 on their computer end they definitely fall under 2 in more recent macs they installed the T2 security chip which prevents competition or rather 3rd party repair from doing their job essentially shutting out others from working on macs (without Apple's tools/software) look at nintendo/sony/microsoft as long as you don't modify hardware/software your free to replace/repair your consoles at the expense of voiding your warranty they dont go after 3rd party repair shops who does legit work (only modders)


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 14, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> The analogy has a flaw.
> 
> If there was only 1 franchise of stores in the world, would that be considered a monopoly? The one company owns all the stores in the world, and they force everyone to buy from them or go through them for sales. That's what's happening with Apple and their iOS devices. They are forcing people to only buy through their store, and will not allow any 'competition' unless they get a cut of it. There were companies that tried to do that in the past, and even Microsoft attempted that back in the early days of the Internet, trying to grab control and be the sole provider of computers within a geographic region. They got in serious trouble for that, so they had to branch out and stop stifling competing stores. Apple is doing that in a digital market. They can claim they are doing it to ensure the integrity of all of their apps, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to break Antitrust Laws.



I'm sorry have you forgotten google exists? that there are other os phones besides IOS? That they treat things in a similar fashion? There is a reason epic also wants to sue google. But at the end of the day they are using their OS and their store fronts. I'm sure if enough products moved away form apple instead of complaining and staying around then apple would be forced to change cause that's capitalism. The analogy still stands. They chose to sell there when they had an alternative: side load on android.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> on their computer end they definitly fall under 2 in more recent macs they installed the T2 security chip which prevents competition or rather 3rd party repair from doing their job essentially shutting out others from working on macs (without their tools/software) look at nintendo/sony/microsoft as long as you don't modify hardware/software your free to replace/repair your consoles at the expense of voiding your warranty they dont go after 3rd party repair shops who does legit work (only modders)



I don't see that as an issue under the current law. While again, scummy, and part of their anti-Right-to-Repair stance, there is nothing in current law stopping them from doing whatever they need to prevent 3rd party repair. Do i agree with it? No. But their stance is that releasing the repair info for their computers could infringe on their copyrights or whatever else, that's why this is meeting an effectively international level of resistance from both sides to get it repealed or secured. We may disagree with it, *but the law currently is on their side*. This requires law to be handled on an effectively national level, at the least, to get any change.

I have followed Louis Rossman's videos (there is no one video I suggest on the subject as he has probably hundreds by now: https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup/featured ) on the subject for a good long while now, and while I'm no expert, I do understand this is, more or less, the stance they take, which is what makes it such a damned minefield making politicians hesitate from just approving right to repair. It also don't help Apple lobbies (which is also sadly not illegal) so heavily to ensure they keep their exclusivity. 

The problem is as I have stated before, an issue with capitalism. The concept may have gotten us out of the stone age, roughly, but it is also doing a hell of a job preventing further progress as the overemphasis on the system has turned politics into 'just another business', allowing for legitimate political control through money. This is a systemic problem that cannot be easily overturned, and it does nothing to prove that Apple has an actual legal monopoly. At most it proves they are protective of their IP under current law, as scummy a damned excuse as that is. Blame the law, not the company, in this case. It's a similar problem to Lootboxes and Gambling, if you want a similar case we can relate to. We believe the shit's illegal, we WANT the shit illegal, but the law sadly does not view it as illegal due to a bunch of annoying technicalities.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 14, 2020)

How did I predict Epic was going to sue Google too? Lol


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 14, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> How did I predict Epic was going to sue Google too? Lol


Because it was obvious they were going to rush to greed for every $0.30 they could to the dollar.


----------



## SystemSpark (Aug 14, 2020)

I'm interested to see how this turns out


----------



## XDel (Aug 14, 2020)

All three of them could fall off the face of the Earth for all I care.


----------



## ZeroFX (Aug 15, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but Apple is heavily-reliant on Chinese manufacturing to produce their hardware, which these days more likely than not means profiting from Uighur slave labor as well.  So while Apple isn't 40% owned by Tencent like Epic is, China's government still wins no matter who loses in this particular lawsuit.


didnt burst my bubble, i know about apples manufacturing, and i dont care, i care about what i commented.


----------



## Tweaker_Modding (Aug 15, 2020)

sks316 said:


> Epic baited Apple into a lawsuit holy shit
> They also published an animation about it to their YouTube channel and are looping it on Twitch
> 
> This is some next-level type baiting
> ...



i saw that video on the switch version of fortnite completely not knowing it was removed from the App Store and Google Play. first thing I said was “What the fuck? is this a teaser for the next season? wait this is that apple commercial from the 80’s why they mentioning this?” to only then see the message at the end and i was like “oh i see now”


----------



## dangopig (Aug 15, 2020)

I'm ready with popcorn


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 15, 2020)

funny how epic ignored the console market in these lawsuits... https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020...gle-it-ignores-the-same-problems-on-consoles/


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 15, 2020)

J-Machine said:


> funny how epic ignored the console market in these lawsuits... https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020...gle-it-ignores-the-same-problems-on-consoles/


It's a weird thing to say he "ignored" consoles. I feel like phones are far more open than an Xbox or Playstation.


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 15, 2020)

Memoir said:


> It's a weird thing to say he "ignored" consoles. I feel like phones are far more open than an Xbox or Playstation.


the argument is over the stores themselves and consoles are just as closed as iphones and all three players have the same policies and 30% take. so should xbox, switch, and ps4 all open themselves to seperate storefronts to encourage competition?


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 15, 2020)

Just want to say it's not only game storefronts that screw over the producers.

When I sell my glass in a brick & mortar shop, they usually want 30 to *50*, FIFTY PERCENT! And that's for consignment, Where I don't even see the money unless the piece sells in their store! If I'm selling wholesale I'll accept 30% pretty easy, since most places want 50%. Thankfully I found _one _shop that only takes 25%, and so I supply them with stuff. 

And this isn't some product that is infinitely available, I can't just copy/paste and create a new piece. I have to work hard to make each single product. 

So instead of getting rammed or jacking up my prices, I decided to sell it on my own direct to consumers. Which is why I like buying games on itch.io if possible, or directly buy steam keys where the devs get most, if not all, the money.

So in short.. capitalism sucks. Swap Life!


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 15, 2020)

J-Machine said:


> I'm sorry have you forgotten google exists? that there are other os phones besides IOS? That they treat things in a similar fashion? There is a reason epic also wants to sue google. But at the end of the day they are using their OS and their store fronts. I'm sure if enough products moved away form apple instead of complaining and staying around then apple would be forced to change cause that's capitalism. The analogy still stands. They chose to sell there when they had an alternative: side load on android.


Please read every discussion I had on this thread. I clearly stated that there other phones, and my analogy was meant to be taken as a hypothetical, not a literal. Please avoid picking a single statement out of a massive amount of text to then take out of context. It doesn't help anyone's arguments, only makes everyone hate one another more.


----------



## Deleted member 514389 (Aug 15, 2020)

Another reason to add to the already epic-ly long list of reasons as to why I strongly dislike this game/EG.

"Bu huu, we want back into your app store, if you won't let us, we'll cry to mommy big court."

Seriously ? Get on with life.

Their store, their decision. Seems as if Epic is just as mature as the average FN Player...


----------



## chaoskagami (Aug 15, 2020)

> antitrust lawsuit



That's not how it works, Lil' Timmy Sweety. Android doesn't do vendor lock-down - anyone can install whatever the hell they want. Google provides integration to the Play Store only if you obey the TOS - you can still sell your shit independently and make people download a third party app store or something. There is no antitrust issue on Android. F-Droid and Humble Bundle say hi.

They could win against Apple I suppose (though precedent says otherwise, it's been tried before, but the fact that apple is a minority compared to Android means it's not in fact an antitrust issue and allowing third-party distribution would open up a whole can of jailbreak-flavored worms here.) They're definitely not going to win against Google here on antitrust, though.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 15, 2020)

chaoskagami said:


> That's not how it works, Lil' Timmy Sweety. Android doesn't do vendor lock-down - anyone can install whatever the hell they want. Google provides integration to the Play Store only if you obey the TOS - you can still sell your shit independently and make people download a third party app store or something. There is no antitrust issue on Android. F-Droid and Humble Bundle say hi.
> 
> They could win against Apple I suppose (though precedent says otherwise, it's been tried before, but the fact that apple is a minority compared to Android means it's not in fact an antitrust issue and allowing third-party distribution would open up a whole can of jailbreak-flavored worms here.) They're definitely not going to win against Google here on antitrust, though.


Exactly. While Apple may have some scummy parts, the whole entire case Epic's building here is sadly not one of them.

There is no monopoly, and people keep scrambling to say they are, but keep failing to prove what Apple is doing here is a Monopoly.

Since my earlier post did some most investigating. Gaming Consoles also run a 30% commission rate. 

https://bit.ly/2DTKO5y 
https://bit.ly/3apKFT8

The misunderstanding might come from 2nd party companies (IE: Ubisoft) and their unique patchers for PC. Admittably, the only proof we got of Sony or Switch come from people who seem to work in the market and can speculate, the actual #s are under an NDA which is liability for a lawsuit if confirmed.

The fact still remains, the industry standard on both levels that we know of is 30%. There's no proof to the otherwise for major platforms. And yet there's people 'conveniently' forgetting that 0 to defend papa Epic.


----------



## Aftershock (Aug 15, 2020)

Be interesting to see how this one turns out. Big lose revenue for Epic every day its not on the stores


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 15, 2020)

Dimensional said:


> Please read every discussion I had on this thread. I clearly stated that there other phones, and my analogy was meant to be taken as a hypothetical, not a literal. Please avoid picking a single statement out of a massive amount of text to then take out of context. It doesn't help anyone's arguments, only makes everyone hate one another more.


I'm not gonna read 8 pages of content when you are directing your argument to 1 point I made and as such I will respond to it. It's not on me in an argument to bring forth the arguments of the person I'm discussing a topic with. that is not how debates work. also you should use the word hypothetical when making such analogies otherwise people will take you out of context because in English you should make your message clear and concise in order to ensure no errors in readability can occur.

That aside we don't need hypotheticals in a discussion about real life scenarios that are actually occurring in real time for a long time. Epic walked Google AND Apple into a lawsuit it custom tailored on purpose because they wanted more money. They excluded the console stores no doubt because that is where they make the most products for. There is more to loose in challenging your dominant business partners, especially when you are publicly traded after all. Tim is a cry baby crying for more entitlement to suckle on. He has alternatives like getting people to side load apks. the phone market doesn't need him, he wants that market and he wants it to play by his rules much like any brat at recess only to make a huge scene when he doesn't get his way.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 15, 2020)

J-Machine said:


> I'm not gonna read 8 pages of content when you are directing your argument to 1 point I made and as such I will respond to it. It's not on me in an argument to bring forth the arguments of the person I'm discussing a topic with.


You are attempting to enter a debate, with the entire conversation available off the dime.

The people involved in a debate are not obligated to repeat their arguments for every individual who waltzes in. You are choosing to willfully ignore multiple pages of points, counterpoints, evidence, and counterevidence, why, because you're lazy? That's not how a debate is held jimmy. Nobody is obligated to repeat a point to you that's already been answered. Instead by choosing to attack a point that already has been answered, you come off as a pretentious gaslighter who ignores evidence in order to push a narrative.

Is that what you're aiming to do? Maybe not. But it is how you come off. Do I come off as a jerkass? Yes. And that's my intent, to be blunt as hell and honest and upfront. Because I ain't gonna spoil you and treat you like you're special. You'll get the same criticism and the same reference to read the 8 pages of content I'd give anyone else. 

Maybe I'm misreading you as well. In that case, whoops, but all I read here is "I ain't going to bring forth an argument that's already been made against me because it isn't convenient for me".


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 15, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> You are attempting to enter a debate, with the entire conversation available off the dime.
> 
> The people involved in a debate are not obligated to repeat their arguments for every individual who waltzes in. You are choosing to willfully ignore multiple pages of points, counterpoints, evidence, and counterevidence, why, because you're lazy? That's not how a debate is held jimmy. Nobody is obligated to repeat a point to you that's already been answered. Instead by choosing to attack a point that already has been answered, you come off as a pretentious gaslighter who ignores evidence in order to push a narrative.
> 
> ...


Oh heck no I never entered a debate. I saw a topic of discussion and replied with my opinion. You replied. Even then I really don't care what you said before because yes you are acting like a jerk and why would I want to put effort into that? the onus is on the person presenting not the person being argued to. I learned that in law class so I don't feel it's up for debate.you can take that as you will but i'm not continuing if this is your attitude and if you don't care about your points enough to bring them back up.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 15, 2020)

J-Machine said:


> Oh heck no I never entered a debate. I saw a topic of discussion and replied with my opinion. You replied. Even then I really don't care what you said before because yes you are acting like a jerk and why would I want to put effort into that? the onus is on the person presenting not the person being argued to. I learned that in law class so I don't feel it's up for debate.you can take that as you will but i'm not continuing if this is your attitude and if you don't care about your points enough to bring them back up.




So 3 things:

A:


> I saw a topic of discussion and replied with my opinion. You replied.



https://gbatemp.net/threads/update-epic-games-to-sue-apple-and-google.571853/page-6#post-9167497

You posted your opinion here, I never replied to that. It was *Dimensional* who replied to you.

B: 





> Even then I really don't care what you said before because yes you are acting like a jerk and why would I want to put effort into that?



Welcome to reality. Nobody has patience for someone who enters a Debate, whether of their own instigation or not, and ignores all evidence they readily have available. People are jerks with you because you don't bother reading anything - whether the previous conversations *or the person you're talking to is name, much less avatar*.

C: 





> I learned that in law class



If this was a court of law, and you were a member of the prosecution or defense, joining partway through the case due to complications or because of you needing to defend your client who's on the bench? Then you sure as hell better have read up the court record to ensure you understand exactly where in the case you stand unless you are full out intent on screwing over your own case and possibly getting thrown out of the court.

Also, this is not a law class, and if you were my lawyer I'd ask for you off my team asap because you couldn't be bothered to read relevant documents/text before walking into the court.

Once you chose to debate with Dimensional, you forfeited any excuse to willful ignorance of prior discussions as one of the sacred rules of debate is to refer to prior debate material to use as ammunition to point out contradictions, whether in your own logic or your opponent's, to either attack the enemy with, or to pivot your own logic to avoid a losing case.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Aug 15, 2020)

i didn't think it was possible for me to hate anymore more than apple. but epic have done it they have taken the number one spot as the most despicable company on earth! your 2nd place now apple


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 15, 2020)

Bladexdsl said:


> i didn't think it was possible for me to hate anymore more than apple. but epic have done it they have taken the number one spot as the most despicable company on earth! your 2nd place now apple


I'm sorry to say but Epic still have to take that crown from EA before they can be considered the most despicable company on earth, and we all know EA will never surrender that crown.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 15, 2020)

Bladexdsl said:


> i didn't think it was possible for me to hate anymore more than apple. but epic have done it they have taken the number one spot as the most despicable company on earth! your 2nd place now apple


For me it's a 6-way tie between Bethesda, EA, Tencent, Activision-Blizzard, Apple, and Epic (technically repeating myself since Epic is a Tencent company). Google's not that much lower, but it's not on my ban list, yet.


----------



## Dimensional (Aug 15, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> For me it's a 6-way tie between Bethesda, EA, Tencent, Activision-Blizzard, Apple, and Epic (technically repeating myself since Epic is a Tencent company). Google's not that much lower, but it's not on my ban list, yet.


I wonder what the official polls will say. I remember EA was voted worst in the world 2 years in a row, and this was during one of the more recent economic depressions. Would be worth investigating again.


----------



## mituzora (Aug 15, 2020)

Just gonna say;  Epic at least on Google's front, does not have to go through their store to publish apps.  They can easily publish apps on their own, make their own Android based store, etc.  There are other options.  They don't have to publish on Google Play.  They violated Google's ToS (it says something about games being required to go through Play's payment system)  and Google dropped them for breaking an agreed-upon ToS.  Doesn't stop them for self-publishing though.

That being said, look at how Microsoft almost became broken into multiple companies over a web browser that they too, were refusing to let OEMs publish on preloaded windows machines.  It can honestly go either way.  You could easily pay for Netscape/download it, but IE was integrated by default, and MS barred OEMs from installing Windows if they chose to preload Netscape.  

So it could easily go either way.  Personally though, because of the ToS and the high availability of other alternative app stores, it wouldn't surprise me if Google won the lawsuit


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 15, 2020)

mituzora said:


> Just gonna say;  Epic at least on Google's front, does not have to go through their store to publish apps.  They can easily publish apps on their own, make their own Android based store, etc.  There are other options.  They don't have to publish on Google Play.  They violated Google's ToS (it says something about games being required to go through Play's payment system)  and Google dropped them for breaking an agreed-upon ToS.  Doesn't stop them for self-publishing though.
> 
> That being said, look at how Microsoft almost became broken into multiple companies over a web browser that they too, were refusing to let OEMs publish on preloaded windows machines.  It can honestly go either way.  You could easily pay for Netscape/download it, but IE was integrated by default, and MS barred OEMs from installing Windows if they chose to preload Netscape.
> 
> So it could easily go either way.  Personally though, because of the ToS and the high availability of other alternative app stores, it wouldn't surprise me if Google won the lawsuit



I've covered this earlier, but this is a matter of 'platform'.

This would be like telling Nintendo, Xbox, or PlayStation, that they need to permit 2nd/3rd party stores on their consoles. At most, they permit 2nd/3rd party sellers (IE: EA/SQEX stores, Gamestop) to provide codes as an intermediary for competition. 

One can argue, Apple requiring all the companies to run through them as a security measure. They can confirm the Apps are scam/virus free, they can ensure that the money transfers are safe, etc. Also by opening to other company stores, they can load cookies or the sort that could risk the security of their customers. There's so many problems that can happen.

And if I was Apple, that would probably be the core front I'd go through. This is different from a browser ban by the OEMs. That's preventing competition to push their own product (browser). There can, and probably is, a valid argument to be held over hosting a first-party only store for customer security. (Note: I am unfamiliar with Apple store and if it supports 2nd party/3rd party stores like I listed above, if it does that only reinforces their case).


----------



## mituzora (Aug 15, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> I've covered this earlier, but this is a matter of 'platform'.
> 
> This would be like telling Nintendo, Xbox, or PlayStation, that they need to permit 2nd/3rd party stores on their consoles. At most, they permit 2nd/3rd party sellers (IE: EA/SQEX stores, Gamestop) to provide codes as an intermediary for competition.
> 
> ...


yeah,  I agree for the most part.  I do think that using the case of microsoft vs netscape can very well be used in terms of this lawsuit, but I agree that Apple can (and likely will) get away with using the security argument.  I mean, we're talking about the company who is actively fighting the right-to-repair bill.

Biggest difference is that Microsoft was controlling the control chain, wheras Apple is doing this on it's own devices, in it's own infastructure, all within their terms of service.  I think that will be their saving grace here.  It would be like someone trying to sue me for not allowing them to eat outside food in my storefront.  it's my storefront, I get to control what I can and can't sell, and if I don't want you to eat someone else's food in my store, I'm well within my legal right to do so.

tl:dr, I'm in agreeance that there's a very strong point that Apple can and will get away with this.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 15, 2020)

mituzora said:


> yeah,  I agree for the most part.  I do think that using the case of microsoft vs netscape can very well be used in terms of this lawsuit, but I agree that Apple can (and likely will) get away with using the security argument.  I mean, we're talking about the company who is actively fighting the right-to-repair bill.
> 
> Biggest difference is that Microsoft was controlling the control chain, wheras Apple is doing this on it's own devices, in it's own infastructure, all within their terms of service.  I think that will be their saving grace here.  It would be like someone trying to sue me for not allowing them to eat outside food in my storefront.  it's my storefront, I get to control what I can and can't sell, and if I don't want you to eat someone else's food in my store, I'm well within my legal right to do so.
> 
> tl:dr, I'm in agreeance that there's a very strong point that Apple can and will get away with this.


This is a different viewpoint, and I agree with that interpretation. There's plenty here saying Apple *will* win this, it's not a matter of If but When. It's just down to if Apple has the testicles to keep it running.

If they do, I fully expect a massive countersuit. 

1 for maliciously breaking contract and all the fees that would occur (presuming the ToS counts as a contract)
1 for defamation by calling them fascists in a public manner (1984tnite will be their undoing I swear). 
And 1 for all the lost funds they would owe Apple (and Google, presuming they do the same) for estimated losses from Transactions through the store they'd have lost for the entirety of the case. While Apple was the one who removed Fortnite from the store, it was due to the breach of ToS. 

A ToS for the most part can be considered a legally binding contract. And I'm all but certain there's some clauses in there for what apple will do for a breach of ToS.

If Google and Apple wants, there's absolutely no way they can't sue Epic into the dirt for this. And I would consider it hilarious because they're currently lacking 2 Cash Flows from Fortnite to support them. For every month that the game's off the Google and iPhone Stores, they will be losing funds as it is. Then they'll have to pay Apple/Google to compensate for those funds as though they upheld the contract to compensate Apple/Google for the lost of funds they should have had if they hadn't broken contract (with this being more likely to be enforced considering the blatant malicious intent thanks to 1984tnite). 

While Google's bill per month will be lower because of sideloading apps, I fully expect both stores to rip Epic a new one combined. While I don't like Google or Apple winning, I got a clear favorite simply cause they don't act a 1/5th as arrogant publically as Epic just did.


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Aug 15, 2020)

apple and google are now dealing with ubisoft and epic this is kinda sad but not really


----------



## mituzora (Aug 15, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> This is a different viewpoint, and I agree with that interpretation. There's plenty here saying Apple *will* win this, it's not a matter of If but When. It's just down to if Apple has the testicles to keep it running.
> 
> If they do, I fully expect a massive countersuit.
> 
> ...




I didn't even think about the recourse of Apple/Google trying to get their money back from fradulent sales from breaking their agreed-upon ToS.  that's a really good point!.  

I grazed on at least Google's ToS in the first post.  It clearly defines that any in-game purchases MUST go through GMS and not through some third-party application(I think non-game apps actually have less restrictions on this)  I don't use Apple personally, so I don't know much about their ToS.  I do know they will actively fight and likely win this lawsuit though.  As I brought up their massive lobbying against the right-to-repair bill, and if its anything like that they will actively fight to keep all money coming into their pocket (that bill is very much worth researching and the massive amounts of money companies like CompTIA and Apple have been putting into lobbying against it). 

I will note that this is also from the point of view from an American consumer, and not something from the EU that has much more reguations on anti-competition.  Apple/Google actually might lose that, if this was a lawsuit in the EU


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 16, 2020)

mituzora said:


> I didn't even think about the recourse of Apple/Google trying to get their money back from fradulent sales from breaking their agreed-upon ToS.  that's a really good point!.
> 
> I grazed on at least Google's ToS in the first post.  It clearly defines that any in-game purchases MUST go through GMS and not through some third-party application(I think non-game apps actually have less restrictions on this)  I don't use Apple personally, so I don't know much about their ToS.  I do know they will actively fight and likely win this lawsuit though.  As I brought up their massive lobbying against the right-to-repair bill, and if its anything like that they will actively fight to keep all money coming into their pocket (that bill is very much worth researching and the massive amounts of money companies like CompTIA and Apple have been putting into lobbying against it).
> 
> I will note that this is also from the point of view from an American consumer, and not something from the EU that has much more reguations on anti-competition.  Apple/Google actually might lose that, if this was a lawsuit in the EU


True, EU might be more in their favor, but both companies are American, will likely sue each other's American officers, in american courts. While the EU can do sanctions, it probably won't change this is an American contract under American contract law.


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 16, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> So 3 things:
> 
> A:
> 
> ...


ya im not buying that. i responded cause my bell had a notification. you just want to instigate for whatever reason. have a nice day


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 16, 2020)

J-Machine said:


> ya im not buying that. i responded cause my bell had a notification. you just want to instigate for whatever reason. have a nice day


Wonderful choice and excuse. Couldn't suggest better for your particular mental acumen!


----------



## HeartfeltDesu (Aug 16, 2020)

I believe Epic is entitled to all the money they get from the games they make, but if they don't want to give Apple a 30% cut they shouldn't agree to the Apple ToS that demands that 30% cut. I barely had any sympathy for Epic when they willfully broke a ToS they agreed and then acted surprised when they got in trouble for it, but after realizing that they had this whole trap filled with lawyers and bad PR set for Apple and Apple walking right it... whew. 

I pretty much lost any genuine interest in the situation when they had the gall to use the lazy go-to overused 1984 metaphor. 1984 is invoked literally whenever a politically ignorant person is pissed off about anything ever, and I can't take any allusions to it seriously anymore. George Orwell would be rolling over in his grave.


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 16, 2020)

IsaOfTheWorlds said:


> I pretty much lost any genuine interest in the situation when they had the gall to use the lazy go-to overused 1984 metaphor. 1984 is invoked literally whenever a politically ignorant person is pissed off about anything ever, and I can't take any allusions to it seriously anymore. George Orwell would be rolling over in his grave.



At this point, more often than not, 1984 is used to scared people about fascists *by* the group closer to true Fascists. Because how better to scare people into joining you than the cultural terror that your opponents are the true fascists? Stupid 2.5D chess move sadly works because of how easily people believe things nowadays...


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 16, 2020)

That video is either going to hurt them or not matter in the long run. If they had just sued without breaking the TOS, they would probably have had a better chance.



CPG said:


> apple and google are now dealing with ubisoft


I took a glance at this. That's pretty funny.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Aug 16, 2020)

i'll laugh my guts out if nintendo and microsoft decide to pull FADnite too. probably won't happen but i can dream


----------



## Arras (Aug 16, 2020)

Bladexdsl said:


> i'll laugh my guts out if nintendo and microsoft decide to pull FADnite too. probably won't happen but i can dream


If they add their own payment system to the console version and it's against their TOS (which it might be, since I think all ingame purchases go through the console shop normally), the exact same thing will probably happen there, lawsuit included. Even if not, if Epic wins the monopoly case against Apple, it would be pretty easy to make the same argument against consoles, since they use a similar walled garden system where the console owner has the only viable store, is the final authority on what is and isn't allowed on there and takes a cut of all sales.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Aug 16, 2020)

yusuo said:


> This should be interesting, it's not David vs goliath, it's goliath vs goliath. Both have very deep pockets and can litigate this with the most expensive lawyers money can buy.
> 
> I hope epic win as it would set a precedent and ultimately help the smallest developers get a bigger piece of the pie


Doesn't Apple also charge a fee to developers to host their apps? I know it used to be like that, and Google just required something like a $25 one time payment for a developer account. This was like 5 years ago so it might've changed.


----------



## HideoKojima (Aug 16, 2020)

Wish I can fast forward this


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 16, 2020)

I couldn't give a toss about your TOS.


----------



## Reijendal (Aug 16, 2020)

Epic Fail


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Aug 17, 2020)

Epic has enough to pay the 30% cut. After all they charge $5-10 worth of V-bucks for individual skins. Fortnite has cross platform accounts anyway, so they can just make V-bucks cheaper on computer to incentivize people to buy them their. Or just have a site for Fortnite where you can buy V-bucks that you have to go to without having it in the app, and just don't let people buy V-bucks through the mobile versions of Fortnite.

But I do want this to set a precedent both for smaller devs to not have to pay almost a third of the revenue from the app to Apple, though I think other store fronts charge similar amounts, and for the TOS of a service not to be treated like it's absolute.

I do have to defend Apple in this specific instance. They did the right thing by just pulling the app and not suing, though now there will probably be a counter suit.

I predict not only will Epic sue over being removed from the app store but also "lost revenue" because people can't download the game anymore make in app purchases if the app isn't on iOS anymore, the  Apple counters with a defamation claim, which will be a little harder to make stick because they're not outright calling them fascists, and suing for the money that they're missing out on by Epic implementing a direct payment option to get around paying Apple a cut. I don't see either thing working out for Apple (because defamation would be harder to make stick here, but also trying to get their cut after the direct payment option is going to be harder since they've removed Fortnite from the store which arguably ends Epic's agreement with them), but realistically I don't see Epic winning because they did knowingly violate the TOS.

The result I would like to see is Epic having to pay some of the money from the in app purchases to Apple, something like 15%, because that will lead to either the TOS changing to give them a smaller cut for everything, or a precedent where the smaller developers can argue they should only have to pay 15%.

I guess contrary to my initial opinion, I want Apple to win but be put into a more compromising position where developers have to pay them less of a cut.

If this were a smaller game that didn't charge a crap ton for cosmetics with an already expensive in game currency I would be rooting for them completely. But Epic can absolutely afford to pay Apple a cut (30% is still high though), and this was clearly planned from the start. I'm sure Epic and Tencent are involved in some sort of sketchy bookkeeping as well.


----------



## Reiten (Aug 17, 2020)

I had this line of thought going through my head, about the whole situation, and figured sharing it.
Epic, faking benevolence, called out Steam on the cut they take from the sales. Steam ignored them, and Epic didn't have any way to do anything. And the prices in Epics store are the same as Steam, so the consumers don't see anything from the lesser cut.
Now Epic fabricated a "casus belli" as an excuses to call out Apple and Google in a manner that they can't ignore.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 17, 2020)

#FreeFortnite, I think you mean #20%OffFortnite


----------



## Danethos86 (Aug 18, 2020)

Hate apple yet hate epic as much. Hope both loose and both companies end up at loss money.


----------



## nxwing (Aug 18, 2020)

Not sure if any of you know this but Apple says that they enforce a 30% fee on IAP on pretty much every app. Every app from every developer. Tim Cook told this in the hearing before the House antitrust committee. Except they don't. They tried waiving that 30% to a 15% for Amazon Prime Video back in 2016. So basically, not all developers are treated equally by Apple. 

Sure, Epic is still shit for breaking the TOS but Apple is just as shitty for even attempting to give special treatment to some companies all while saying they treat all developers equally.


----------



## Shape (Aug 18, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> I agree 30% is excessive, but again, it's sadly not *illegal*. That one word is what matters here.




Illegal matters less in civil court, where this is happening. Civil court tends to revolve more around 'is the contract legal', 'is the contract fair?' And 'is it impossible for one of the contract participants to fulfill the obligations of the contract?".

Which Epic is probably going to claim the 30% will kill a little guy. But then again, I don't have ANY friends with iOS products anymore, and the only mac guy i know isnt happy about mac anymore.[/QUOTE]


----------



## VartioArtel (Aug 18, 2020)

Shape said:


> Illegal matters less in civil court, where this is happening. Civil court tends to revolve more around 'is the contract legal', 'is the contract fair?' And 'is it impossible for one of the contract participants to fulfill the obligations of the contract?".
> 
> Which Epic is probably going to claim the 30% will kill a little guy. But then again, I don't have ANY friends with iOS products anymore, and the only mac guy i know isnt happy about mac anymore.


[/QUOTE]

The issue again is 30% is the industry standard. "Small guys" like Toby (Undertale) have gotten by that, for example (and yes, consoles do run the 30% standard). Other small companies have too. The argument's being spoken from a BIG company at that which makes that argument self defeating too. If an actual small company made that argument maybe it would hold weight, but it would be like Microsoft complaining that 30% is 'too high' in court, for relative thoughts.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 23, 2020)

Funnily enough, seems like Microsoft is defending Epic.


----------

