mr moose

I don't know of a company that does it specifically, but just about any fabrication/engineer firm should be able to build whatever you ask them. As for sending it oversees you can do that yourself. @Bombastinator I check in on PM's and respond to these, but avoid the rest of it. EDIT; I meant to quote the OP not bombastinator, but he/she should get the notification anyway.

Competition when buying a phone is not the problem though. When they control the software market they are engaging in negative consumer practices. I still don't think it works as an analogy. 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.

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 ca

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

now I know you aren't reading my posts. now I am certain you are just trolling.

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.

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

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

All of those things are true, or at least highly likely. But my point is not to argue the outcome is set, but that the concept of the app store being a monopoly is not arbitrary nor an ideal. It has legitimate grounds in law to be considered anti trust.

And where that relates to fortnight is that people have bought in app stuff for fortnight which they may no longer be able to use or advance with. For the consumer the product changed. The courts have addressed that though, This is why the courts barred apple form banning UE in ios, to calculate the financial damage would e almost impossible with the sheer number of developers and games that have current iap and the number that are in current development. So we can't just say, well that game was free therefore it has no value, it contained lots of value in iap and the UE containe

It's not arbitrary, they are divorced form the rest of the market, you can't by iphone software from anywhere else, ergo its been isolated from the rest of the market. I'm not arguing google is much better, in fact I am arguing they have a monopoly of sorts too, buy at least you can buy and use software straight from the developer with android without having to pay anything extra or get a new device. The judge has already said he fully expects the experts to argue the app store is in violation of antitrust (primarily the 30% being anti competitive). So it's not just my opinion

No it's not. Read the excerpt I linked earlier. Not just like it at all, best buy customers can go to walmart or some other store, iphone users can't. They are not the same at all. If apple are found guilty of anti trust, nothing else will change, best buy won't change. The law does not dictate a monopoly is illegal, the law says using your monopoly to harm other trade is illegal. That is why the law is called anti trust and the condition it rests upon is a monopoly. They are two very different things, but for whatever reason people in this thread can't gras

One thing people probably need to come to terms with is that you don't have to take sides in this. You can hate both players and hope for a different outcome. From the very beginning I have not said anything about wanting Epic to prevail, I do not like epic as a game dev and I don't particularly care for their business practices. As far as I am concerned if you play with fire one day you will get burnt. But that doesn't make apple innocent on all accounts and that doesn't change the fact they also need to be burnt. What's best for consumers and tech development is that everyo

I don't care if epic prevail or not, I don't even care if they are guilty or not. Absolutely none of my posts ever have said anything about epic being anything other than evil. I care that the app store is a monopoly that apple engages in antitrust with.

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.