Judge delivers split decision on Epic vs Apple - more positive than negative for Epic

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Yep, the judge acknowledged that if apple carried out their threat it would be anti trust.  That happened.

 

Not arguing the definition of a word people can look up,  If people don't understand what I meant then that is on them, not English.

If it's not worth repeating then don't even bother posting.   You'll note I have stopped responding to some of the posters in this thread,  the arguments have all been rebutted and debunked. I don't need to repeat myself with them.

Re: anti trust:

it an antitrust case in the first place.  You’re pretending that the preliminary injunction hearing was the entire case. It’s not.  So no. Didn’t happen.  Implies it COULD happen, that it MIGHT happen, but it hasn’t happened.  Yet. If such court cases could be decided in an afternoon, theyd be decided in an afternoon.  There is an argument that the court did not come off the block and say that the concept is totally full of it, though the refusal to make an injunction for the fortnight game came perilously close.  That’s all that can even argubly be said though. 

 

re: word definitions. 
neither am I.  
 

re: repetition 

exactly.  

[Kisai]

21 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Acaually, technically the value of iPhones has gone down now.

eBay listings for iPhones suggest otherwise. However yes, it's theoretically a reason why someone might pick Android over iPhone. However since the vast majority of Fortnite players are console players, there's nothing stopping the players from playing Fortnite on a console or PC since they are free to download.

 

Our favorite Copyright attorney has some words:

 

 

The thing I'll note here is that the TRO is 14 days (from what Leonard highlights in the video) from August 24th. Leonard, and the judge points out the "unclean hands" in EPIC's premeditated violation of the TOS in getting removed from the app store. Skeptical that Apple is acting in some kind of anti-competitive behavior. Apple having a monopoly over it's own devices hasn't been illegal before, and isn't illegal now (paraphrased).

 

 

The language regarding the UE engine is technically wrong as stated in the document, but correct enough for a legal proceeding for the TRO.

 

Regarding UE:

- Any developer can download the UE source code and compile it, so they are not locked out from UE regardless of Epic's support for iOS. That would only apply to binary versions that have to be signed by Apple and Unreal Engine.

- The main reason not to terminate UE is because the companies are in different legal jurisdictions and are legally different, even if that's only on paper.

 

Regarding Fortnite: 

- EPIC crated the conditions for the lawsuit itself, and Epic's refusal of returning to the status quo (removing the server-side patch to enable IAP w/o app store) is why Fortnite must be removed.

- Apple is within it's right to remove it for contract breach with the developer. End point.

 

My opinion is that the court aren't programmers and wouldn't know or care how UE is used, but suffice it to say there was no need for Apple to remove EPIC's access to the tools.

 

 

[mr moose]

Just now, TheSage79 said:

It was Epic who changed Fortnite and broke their contract with Apple, any damages to any customers because of that is entirely on Epic. There is no anti-trust law that allows epic to break a contract. 

Correct,  the judge declared he would not undo the fortnight ban from ios on financial reasons because the damage was self inflicted. No one can sure for damages caused by your own actions.

 

Just now, TheSage79 said:

And once again, thats just not how TRO's work. The T means temporary (30 days in this case IIRC) and the matter will be re-addressed at a later date. There has been no final decision one way or the other if the developer account can be banned or not. All that has happened is the judge put everything on hold.

I know how they work.  Just because they are temporary doesn't mean the founding reason for granting them is flawed.  

 

Just now, TheSage79 said:

As a side note, Apple never said they were banning EU based games from the App store. They just said they were going to ban Epic from the developer program. Existing EU games would be unaffected. 

 

 

They actually said they were going to remove UE support from the dev kit.  meaning every developer using UE would be impacted.  It was the sole reason the judge upheld the request for a TRO.

 

Quote

requests as to Fortnite and other games and in favor of granting a temporary restraining order based as to the Unreal Engine and other effected developer tools.

and the final word:

 

Quote

APPLE, ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED fromtaking adverse action against Epic Games with respect to restricting, suspending or terminating any affiliate of Epic Games, such as Epic International, from Apple’s Developer Program, including as to Unreal Engine, on the basis that Epic Games enabled in-app payment processing in Fortnite through means other than IAP or on the basis of the steps Epic took to do so.

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 You’re pretending that the preliminary injunction hearing was the entire case.

Read my posts again, I am saying nothing of the sort. 

[pas008]

46 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Read my posts again, I am saying nothing of the sort. 

Here is an article that states this

“So the question is: Without competition, where does that 30% come from?” the judge said. “Why isn’t it 10, 15, 20? How is the consumer at all benefiting from the fact that you get to say what you want it to be?”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-08-24/apple-judge-inclined-to-unblock-epic-tools-but-not-fortnite

[Bombastinator]

36 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Read my posts again, I am saying nothing of the sort. 

But it’s basically all you have said. It’s been more or less “see! See! it’s a monopoly!  This shows that the court agrees!”  I believe several terms were used to describe the court statements as such.  I’d quote them but they’ve dropped to another page which I can’t get to without losing this reply.  I have not made a stand in this thread as to whether I think it is a monopoly or not.  I made a stand that the court did not say those things or imply them with their actions regarding the injunction.

 

an imho supposition as to what I think happened so far:

Spoiler

 I do think there is an implication from the refusal of the court to force Apple to allow Epic to run their internal App Store that Epic will likely fail in its suit. It does appear that the court views epic fortnight to be an American company, and fortnight unreal to be a completely different Swiss one, rather than the same company which is chinese as basically everyone here so far has assumed to be the case. This apparently was the reason that the injunction was granted for unreal.  They have nothing to do with it as they’re not the same company.   They’re according to the court, unrelated.  I suspect that will likely stop happening.  At that point I don’t know which way such a thing will go.

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

But it’s basically all you have said. It’s been more or less “see! See! it’s a monopoly!  This shows that the court agrees!”  I believe several terms were used to describe the court statements as such.  I’d quote them but they’ve dropped to another page which I can’t get to without losing this reply.  I have not made a stand in this thread as to whether I think it is a monopoly or not.  I made a stand that the court did not say those things or imply them with their actions regarding the injunction.

 

an imho supposition as to what I think happened so far:

  Hide contents

 I do think there is an implication from the refusal of the court to force Apple to allow Epic to run their internal App Store that Epic will likely fail in its suit. It does appear that the court views epic fortnight to be an American company, and fortnight unreal to be a completely different Swiss one, rather than the same company which is chinese as basically everyone here so far has assumed to be the case. This apparently was the reason that the injunction was granted for unreal.  They have nothing to do with it as they’re not the same company.   They’re according to the court, unrelated.  I suspect that will likely stop happening.  At that point I don’t know which way such a thing will go.

 

No, I said the courts reasoning for allowing the TRO can only stand if it is anti trust. If there is no anti trust then there is no reason for the court to allow the TRO.  The court literally said the retaliation from apple would harm too many developers unfairly,  The only way that apples threat could actually harm others is if it is part of a market they have sole control of. ergo a monopoly. 

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

49 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

But it’s basically all you have said. It’s been more or less “see! See! it’s a monopoly!  This shows that the court agrees!”  I believe several terms were used to describe the court statements as such.  I’d quote them but they’ve dropped to another page which I can’t get to without losing this reply.  I have not made a stand in this thread as to whether I think it is a monopoly or not.  I made a stand that the court did not say those things or imply them with their actions regarding the injunction.

 

an imho supposition as to what I think happened so far:

  Reveal hidden contents

 I do think there is an implication from the refusal of the court to force Apple to allow Epic to run their internal App Store that Epic will likely fail in its suit. It does appear that the court views epic fortnight to be an American company, and fortnight unreal to be a completely different Swiss one, rather than the same company which is chinese as basically everyone here so far has assumed to be the case. This apparently was the reason that the injunction was granted for unreal.  They have nothing to do with it as they’re not the same company.   They’re according to the court, unrelated.  I suspect that will likely stop happening.  At that point I don’t know which way such a thing will go.

 

Please spell the name of the game right.

 

Also, courts do thingk apple could be a monopoly, which is proven by the fact that they had anti trust hearings, including one for Apple.

 

Also, is Epic's lawyers weren't 110% sure they could win, they would have never approved the whole thing. If it was forced, a lot of Epic's lawyers would probably have said something, or something would’ve leaked.

[Bombastinator]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, I said the courts reasoning for allowing the TRO can only stand if it is anti trust. If there is no anti trust then there is no reason for the court to allow the TRO.  The court literally said the retaliation from apple would harm too many developers unfairly,  The only way that apples threat could actually harm others is if it is part of a market they have sole control of. ergo a monopoly. 

 

 

So not no, but yes.  And I said the assumption was false because that isn’t how they work.

[mr moose]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

And is said the assumption was false because that isn’t how they work.

As the old saying goes; if it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, it is shit.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

24 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Please spell the name of the game right.

 

Also, courts do thing apple could be a monopoly, which is proven by the fact that they had anti trust hearings, including one for Apple.

 

Also, is Epic's lawyers weren't 110% sure they could win, they would have never approved the whole thing. If it was forced, a lot of Epic's lawyers would probably have said something, or something would’ve leaked.

If you care about  the spelling of the name of the game in question can I care about the phrase “courts do thing Apple”?  We’re both triggered I guess.  I propose to blame the whole thing on autocorrect or bad typing or whatever.

 

Some courts may.  It becomes a question of which courts and for what reasons. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

If you care about  the spelling of the name of the game in question can I care about the phrase “courts do thing Apple”?  We’re both triggered I guess.  I propose to blame the whole thing on autocorrect or bad typing or whatever.

 

Some courts may.  It becomes a question of which courts and for what reasons. 

Think*

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Think*

I know. I was able to figure it out.  Autocorrect is evil.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I know. I was able to figure it out.  Autocorrect is evil.

Yeah. 90% of the time "thinj" is thing, and "git" is get. I think auto correct thinks that the letters are arranged differently.

[poochyena]

23 hours ago, pas008 said:

ios and the apple app store has exclusive control of that market

false. windows, android, and linux also have control over the computer market. Android is a direct competitor to apple/ios.

 

[pas008]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

false. windows, android, and linux also have control over the computer market. Android is a direct competitor to apple/ios.

 

if they were direct competitors then why cant i install my andriod apps on my idevice?

or vice versa?

oh wait its completely locked down

 

meaning ios is its own market sector

 

windows linux and android all have multiple stores/ways to acquire software for their os

does ios?

 

 

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, pas008 said:

if they were direct competitors then why cant i install my andriod apps on my idevice?

or vice versa?

oh wait its completely locked down

 

meaning ios is its own market sector

 

windows linux and android all have multiple stores/ways to acquire software for their os

does ios?

 

 

Many of them you can. Though you might have to buy them again. Some just won’t work.  One android app pimlical, actually can’t be translated.  It’s the ongoing palm pilot planner software.  It’s so old and was originally written for such primitive hardware it’s not really compatible with a *nix file system. It actually uses flat file.  Probably the last commonly used app to do so. Permutations of Linux originally being minix make it possible on android. iOS is a BSD Unix though.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Many of them you can. Though you might have to buy them again. Some just won’t work.  One android app pimlical, actually can’t be translated.  It’s the ongoing palm pilot planner software.  It’s so old and was originally written for such primitive hardware it’s not really compatible with a *nix file system. It actually uses flat file.  Probably the last commonly used app to do so. Permutations of Linux originally being minix make it possible on android. iOS is a BSD Unix though.

That's all irrelevant. Linux is not Unix. FreeBSD and OS X are direct descendants of Unix. At no point does it actually matter for anything short of "Not-invented-here" crap that happens all the time on Linux, of which Apple and Microsoft do as well. It's not like "Unix is god, must always do it the Unix-way"

 

The only thing that keeps a developer from developing something for iOS, MacOS X, FreeBSD, Android, and the half billion variations on Linux kernel-userland-distro is that there is no standard by which anything can access the graphics or audio devices. Only the text-mode and network api's are common between all operating systems, and even then they have their own finagling. Android is also incredibly difficult and it's pedantic build process is the outright designed to waste your time by needing Java to build a C++ program. Nobody likes or even wants Java on their mobile device. For all other operating systems that have at least a 16-bit CPU, you can compile things from straight C, or C++ or OBJC or anything that will run with a C runtime. So it's almost entirely a process of figuring out what the native graphics primitives and API's are on the OS and the same with the sound.

 

Game engines hide the API's and native stuff with their own proprietary layer of nonsense. By which if you are stuck on UE 4.3, you are stuck on 4.3 forever unless you go through and hand-edit everything that changes between 4.3 and a later version. The same applies to Unity, Godot, Gamemaker, and anything else that's a collection of API wrappers like SDL and Cocos2Dx.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

if they were direct competitors then why cant i install my andriod apps on my idevice?

or vice versa?

oh wait its completely locked down

 

meaning ios is its own market sector

 

windows linux and android all have multiple stores/ways to acquire software for their os

does ios?

Why can't I put my Ford Fiesta throttle body on my Honda Civic? You can't, it's locked down so all the car market is not actually a car market, each car and model based off that common platform is their own entire market?

 

Um what logic is this? Just because there is compatibility issues between products in the same market does not make those things their own or part of a different market, they just aren't compatible, which is fine.

 

Or in a gaming/tech context are you saying Xbox and PlayStation are also not direct competitors? Because they are and the same applies, compatibility and storefronts don't define a market.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Why can't I put my Ford Fiesta throttle body on my Honda Civic? You can't, it's locked down so all the car market is not actually a car market, each car and model based off that common plant if their own entire market?

 

Um what logic is this? Just because there is compatibility issues between products in the same market does not make those things their own or part of a different market, they just aren't compatible, which is fine.

You can put an after market one in though.  It will void you’re warranty if it still exists though.  There was a period where this could not be done.  This was a thing that had to go to court once about cars.  What I think might happen if phones are viewed as cars is that the systems preventing rooting might have to be removable after a certain period, with rooting locking one out of the App Store or something. A difference between the two could be discerned though if the root causes a safety issue. Might be why Apple goes on about safety for their ecosystem model. Keeps them out of that hole. Such a ruling would probably apply to all phones not just Apple. 

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You can put an after market one in though.  It will void you’re warranty if it still exists though

Well of course you can, like you can put custom accessories on phones too like lenses but this in no way makes iOS it's own market not part of the same market Android is in. And often after market parts for cars are for specific platforms so an after market throttle body for Fiesta is unlikely to also work for a Civic etc.

 

But like my later edit about consoles, simply no this is not how markets work, Android and iOS are in the same market.

[poochyena]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

if they were direct competitors then why cant i install my andriod apps on my idevice?

or vice versa?

because that has nothing to do with competing. They are competitors because they take customers away from each other. Its like saying McDonalds and Burger King don't compete because they have a different menu.

[mr moose]

37 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

But like my later edit about consoles, simply no this is not how markets work, Android and iOS are in the same market.

I don't think that was his point.  His point was if you are on android you don't have to buy software from google, if you are on windows you don't have to buy software from MS, if you are on Linux you don't have to buy software from Linus Torvalds.  

 

But if you are on ios you can only buy from apple, which means that apple controls who sells, and how you sell it.  It is a controlled market, it should be the same market as android, but its not the same as android in this regard.  And that is a very important distinction.

 

I don't like the car analogies,  when you buy a car you have multiple options for spare parts, you can drive it anywhere, you can fill it anywhere, you don't have to pay the manufacturer a fee if you take it to a 3rd party mechanic for modification or repairs.  I just don't see how that analogy works. 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't think that was his point.  His point was if you are on android you don't have to buy software from google, if you are on windows you don't have to buy software from MS, if you are on Linux you don't have to buy software from Linus Torvalds.  

 

But if you are on ios you can only buy from apple, which means that apple controls who sells, and how you sell it.  It is a controlled market, it should be the same market as android, but its not the same as android in this regard.  And that is a very important distinction.

 

I don't like the car analogies,  when you buy a car you have multiple options for spare parts, you can drive it anywhere, you can fill it anywhere, you don't have to pay the manufacturer a fee if you take it to a 3rd party mechanic for modification or repairs.  I just don't see how that analogy works. 

That still does not make them different markets, what is being described is negative consumer practices by a company in a market. Apple doing what they are doing doesn't suddenly make them of a different market, Apple and iOS still compete with Android.

 

And for cars you only have options that are compatible, OEM or 3rd party. This is not any different to Apple store for your Apple phone, your choices are only that which is compatible, just like with your car. Now yes you can be a more advanced person and do an entire engine swap and ECU etc but you can also buy all the parts of an Apple phone and build one yourself too, I don't think this is very relevant at all to talking about a market and companies competing within them. That's no different to making the same mistake as saying Texas Speed is in the same market as Dodge.

 

As with computing and market data, DIY sales are not included in PC computer shipment/sales data, just the same as the number of Motors Texas Speed sells is not included in the number of cars sold. Parts market and product markets are not necessarily the same i.e Intel vs AMD rather than Intel vs HP.

 

Edit:

Also while that car is under warranty no you cannot take it to a 3rd part mechanic unless they are a certified repairer for that brand. Cars are more often owned and operated outside of the manufactures warranty and support periods, unlike phones.

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That still does not make them different markets, what is being described is negative consumer practices by a company in a market. Apple doing what they are doing doesn't suddenly make them of a different market, Apple and iOS still compete with Android.

Competition when buying a phone is not the problem though. When they control the software market they are engaging in negative consumer practices.

 

Quote

And for cars you only have options that are compatible, OEM or 3rd party. This is not any different to Apple store for your Apple phone, your choices are only that which is compatible, just like with your car. Now yes you can be a more advanced person and do an entire engine swap and ECU etc but you can also buy all the parts of an Apple phone and build one yourself too, I don't think this is very relevant at all to talking about a market and companies competing within them. That's no different to making the same mistake as saying Texas Speed is in the same market as Dodge.

I still don't think it works as an analogy.

 

Quote

As with computing and market data, DIY sales are not included in PC computer shipment/sales data, just the same as the number of Motors Texas Speed sells is not included in the number of cars sold. Parts market and product markets are not necessarily the same i.e Intel vs AMD rather than Intel vs HP.

 

Edit:

Also while that car is under warranty no you cannot take it to a 3rd part mechanic unless they are a certified repairer for that brand. Cars are more often owned and operated outside of the manufactures warranty and support periods, unlike phones.

warranty doesn't change the practice of software control.  The debate has been shifted back to hardware, it is a software market problem.  All phones have warranty that are void if you go elsewhere,  which is a crazy notion because either you don't care about the warranty being void or you will use the warranty because you don't want to pay for repairs you don't have to.