Press F for Fortnite - Apple AND GOOGLE remove Fortnite from the App Store - Epic Sues Apple

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

the license to use the OS belongs to the consumer who bought the device, and it's his property and up to him to decide what to do with it.

 

yes. If it doesn't then it's on Apple for not pricing it correctly.

No they actually license the software you get in the app store. Also no the OS does not belong to you it is licensed meaning Apple allows you to use it as long as you follow the ToS so no you cannot do anything you want with it. For example:

 

(d) You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or by licensing terms governing use of open-source components that may be included with the Apple Software). You agree not to remove, obscure, or alter any proprietary notices (including trademark and copyright notices) that may be affixed to or contained within the Apple Software

 

So you would rather them up the price and make development inaccessible to a large number of people?  

[pas008]

hey I sell your product that you worked hard on but I get over a quarter of the sales no matter what and hardly no expenses because you can do that  that work and I am only one that can sell it here

this is what it is plain and simple, mafia style shit

 

this is what many of you are agreeing to

 

rough estimate here

1 billion in fortnite sales  at 25% for ios market share (rough estimate like i said of ios sales)

and that by 30% for apples cut

 

apple deserves 75m?

mafia style shit

 

and then again they have the mafia style shit with what I can and cant do with my devices cause i'm forced to use their ios and app store so they get their 30% no matter what

 

 

on another note apple only charges amazon 15% of their digital sales on prime

 

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

28 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Also no the OS does not belong to you it is licensed meaning Apple allows you to use it as long as you follow the ToS so no you cannot do anything you want with it. For example:

Yes, but by buying a IOS device, you are given a licence to use the software included with the devise, including the device.

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Yes, but by buying a IOS device, you are given a licence to use the software included with the devise, including the device.

But you can't do with it as you please which was the point I'm countering. There's stringent legislation on what is and isn't allowed and breaking of those ToS means apple can sue the shit out of you if they chose to. 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

They made the phone, they own the OS and they license the software.

How many times do you need to be told that making something and licensing something doesn't absolve you from being in a market monopoly.   Intel used to own all the x86 IP (All of it solely), they invested and developed it from scratch
, doesn't mean they get to carry out a monopoly,  they were done for anti trust. MS owns all of windows, they developed the whole thing (don;t go pretending apple did anything Bill gates wrote the half the apple software), they got done for monopoly.  Just creating something and owning it doesn't mean you can;t be in a monopoly for using it.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Kinda did, they market the apps in the first place and don't you remember "there's an app for that". Plus they run and maintain the platform. Unless you think Sony

No kinda about it, you are still conflating running a platform with selling a specific product,  apple did not in anyway invest in making candy crush or angry birds, that was all solely the work of the developer. 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Yes based on your responses you do.

BS you are being dishonest again.  show anywhere where I have even insinuated apple should be remunerated for running the app store? show me anywhere where I have said that.  I have always maintained that it is the in-app purchases.  But you and a few of your friends have created the strawman argument that we are attacking the whole stores existence (just the in-app fees).  So you can do exactly what you did in this post and and argue complaints that were never made. 

8 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Sure they can disallow free apps which means developers AND apple get a worse deal than the current one. Do you remember when Freemium wasn't a thing on the app store and every cost about 80p-£5 to download and noone downloaded anything because fuck paying £5 for a mobile game.

No you're just ignoring everyone and don't understand how the real world works. 

Not going to argue strawman.  Have fun burning them down.

 

 

[Lord Vile]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How many times do you need to be told that making something and licensing something doesn't absolve you from being in a market monopoly.   Intel used to own all the x86 IP (All of it solely), they invested and developed it from scratch
, doesn't mean they get to carry out a monopoly,  they were done for anti trust. MS owns all of windows, they developed the whole thing (don;t go pretending apple did anything Bill gates wrote the half the apple software), they got done for monopoly.  Just creating something and owning it doesn't mean you can;t be in a monopoly for using it.

 

The x86 thing is a special case as AMD had been manufacturing x86 parts under licence from intel which made it the default arch and then they tried to cut AMD out and so forth, not really applicable in this case.

 

Microsofts monopoly charge was successfully appealed.

Quote

No kinda about it, you are still conflating running a platform with selling a specific product,  apple did not in anyway invest in making candy crush or angry birds, that was all solely the work of the developer. 

And Sony didn't invest in the sale of GTAV but they still take a 30% cut of in game purchases after the cut of the game purchase. Over 40% of the PS revenue is from in game purchases and DLC.

Quote

 

BS you are being dishonest again.  show anywhere where I have even insinuated apple should be remunerated for running the app store?

Remunerated means they should be paid for the service they provide, you have being saying they shouldn't

Quote

 

show me anywhere where I have said that.  I have always maintained that it is the in-app purchases.  But you and a few of your friends have created the strawman argument that we are attacking the whole stores existence (just the in-app fees).  So you can do exactly what you did in this post and and argue complaints that were never made. 

They only make money from in app fees, the vast majority of apps are free now so arguing that they shouldn't be able to take a cut of that would mean they took a loss. 

Quote

Not going to argue strawman.  Have fun burning them down.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

The x86 thing is a special case as AMD had been manufacturing x86 parts under licence from intel which made it the default arch and then they tried to cut AMD out and so forth, not really applicable in this case.

not special,  there is no such thing as a special case.

Quote

Microsofts monopoly charge was successfully appealed.

no it wasn't

 

Quote

And Sony didn't invest in the sale of GTAV but they still take a 30% cut of in game purchases after the cut of the game purchase.

Remunerated means they should be paid for the service they provide, you have being saying they shouldn't

They only make money from in app fees, arguing that they shouldn't be able to take a cut of that would mean they took a loss. 

 

no it doesn't, There are multiple ways they can make money without stooging developers.  Besides that, in a free market where a company supposedly gets to do what they want with their own product,  failing to make money on a product means the product is not viable.  So even if it did result in them loosing money (I highly doubt as that makes no sense) it would not change the illegality of the monopoly.

 

EDIT:just in addendum to that last bit,  if apple want to argue they have to charge 30% for all in ap then they are likely going to have to prove to the courts (with financials) why.  that would be scary for some people to witness I think.  Also money aside, they still have to prove the essential nature of their control of what apps do and can't do I.E not letting kapersky block safari,  because that action is still anti trust without a damned good reason.

 

[Arika]

6 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

No they actually license the software you get in the app store. Also no the OS does not belong to you it is licensed meaning Apple allows you to use it as long as you follow the ToS so no you cannot do anything you want with it.

This isn't a defense. in fact you should more pissed off at them for effectively saying "you don't own this phone you just bought" and giving you two middle fingers.

 

Also to bring the ToS into this discussion is pointless, ToS's are not ironclad, ever, they get challenged in courts all the time. In fact, i would suggest you read this amazing write up from @Delicieuxz regarding software ownership

 

 

 

By using the ToS as a shield to hide behind and the stupid "their platform their rules" you've effectively relegated yourself to a position where you're not allowed to criticize any company ever or any of their products.

 

Consumers should be the ones telling companies what to do, not the other way around... because without us, they have no money.

[Lord Vile]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

not special,  there is no such thing as a special case.

Kinda is because of the situation and the past dealings of the company's 

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

no it wasn't

Which one you talking about then? Because the one i know of was appealed and an agreement was made where Microsoft was monitored for 5 years.

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

no it doesn't, There are multiple ways they can make money without stooging developers.  Besides that, in a free market where a company supposedly gets to do what they want with their own product,  failing to make money on a product means the product is not viable.  So even if it did result in them loosing money (I highly doubt as that makes no sense) it would not change the illegality of the monopoly.

Like what? if you're so omniscient how could they make money from it? Also it's hardly stooging developers. 

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

EDIT:just in addendum to that last bit,  if apple want to argue they have to charge 30% for all in ap then they are likely going to have to prove to the courts (with financials) why.  that would be scary for some people to witness I think.  Also money aside, they still have to prove the essential nature of their control of what apps do and can't do I.E not letting kapersky block safari,  because that action is still anti trust without a damned good reason.

 

You ignoring that literally everyone else does exactly the same thing. Because you didn't address it. 

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

This isn't a defense. in fact you should more pissed off at them for effectively saying "you don't own this phone you just bought" and giving you two middle fingers.

It comes with literally every piece of software.

Quote

 

Also to bring the ToS into this discussion is pointless, ToS's are not ironclad, ever, they get challenged in courts all the time. In fact, i would suggest you read this amazing write up from @Delicieuxz regarding software ownership

 

 

Loopholes galore

Quote

By using the ToS as a shield to hide behind and the stupid "their platform their rules" you've effectively relegated yourself to a position where you're not allowed to criticize any company ever or any of their products.

 

Consumers should be the ones telling companies what to do, not the other way around... because without us, they have no money.

Some people say give the customers what they want, but that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, 'If I'd ask customers what they wanted, they would've told me a faster horse.' People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page. - Steve Jobs 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Kinda is because of the situation and the past dealings of the company's 

 

That doesn't make it special, it was anti trust  when they were dealing with their own product in their own market.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Which one you talking about then? Because the one i know of was appealed and an agreement was made where Microsoft was monitored for 5 years.

When the EU forced them to unbundle ie and fined them.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Like what? if you're so omniscient how could they make money from it? Also it's hardly stooging developers. 

You ignoring that literally everyone else does exactly the same thing. Because you didn't address it. 

 

Again you are going back to arguing the whole market,  The complaints are specifically about in-app transactions being hit with a 30% fee and no way around it.    I know you like to bang on about steam, but you don;t need steam to sell a game on the C, you don;t have to sell your game through the PSN or xbox live store.  and you can have external sources of payment on many of these services. 

 

I Have thoroughly addressed everything.

[Arika]

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Some people say give the customers what they want, but that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, 'If I'd ask customers what they wanted, they would've told me a faster horse.' People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page. - Steve Jobs 

Customers don't want locked down systems, they put up with them, they want openess and choice, that's literally the whole reason why FOSS has become as big as it has. Also to use a quote from Jobs...the guy who implemented such a systems, doesn't give credit to your argument

 

The quote is also just saying "people don't know what they want until we show them, but when they see what they want, we just ignore them and keep doing our own thing". 

 

Certainly seems like someone who doesn't care about customers.

[Kisai]

35 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Customers don't want locked down systems, they put up with them, they want openess and choice, that's literally the whole reason why FOSS has become as big as it has. Also to use a quote from Jobs...the guy who implemented such a systems, doesn't give credit to your argument

 

The quote is also just saying "people don't know what they want until we show them, but when they see what they want, we just ignore them and keep doing our own thing". 

 

Certainly seems like someone who doesn't care about customers.

No, that's just your own spin on it.

 

Apple comes out with things, "new" things. FOSS rarely comes out with new things, just iterates on existing things until there's nothing left to innovate, and then increases the version number and break everything just to do it again.

 

FOSS is really a top-down approach where they try to provide something equal or better than the thing that already exists, they can never make a better thing ultimately unless the thing they produce outlives the (commercial product) thing it replaces. That means the FOSS product is entirely dependent on that need to exist. Look at Firefox to see how nobody needs firefox because Chrome exists. But Firefox needs to exist as it's the only independant web browser remaining and if it were to disappear, websites would not need to adhere to a HTML5 standard, they only need to adhere to what Chromium supports, and there has been several things like that have happened because Firefox readily followed Chrome's approach to things.

 

Chrome, as you will recall is a fork of the Apple Webkit engine, which is what powers Safari. All the web browsers still use their own Javascript implementations. Google literately "Forked the popular thing and then dominated the market with it". This is a market Apple could have had, had it just been bothered to produce Safari for Windows before Google had the chance to.

 

Chrome did not need to exist, Firefox was doing just fine with 25% of the market share in 2010, but Chrome ultimately eroded MSIE's share (which was 70% or so.) Firefox today now has the same share that Chrome did upon it's initial release (about 5%) and Edge has 5%, while Chrome has 70%.

 

Can you honestly say that people wanted a phone that was also a mp3 player in 2008? No, because at the time people wanted camera phones, and GPS wasn't even a standard feature unless you bought a high end mobile phone, and even then, it required actual line of sight to GPS satelites and was nowhere near as good as a dedicated GPS device (that you had to pay for.) So what did you get with an iPhone? You got a mp3 player, a camera, a button-less touch-screen display, a GPS, a web browser and a phone. All stuff that you needed two or three separate physical devices for. And they all worked without additional costs. I had a N95 when the iPhone came out, because I could not figure out why people wanted to spend so much money on a mp3-player phone. The N95 could do that, and the GPS worked (most of the time, but only outdoors), and that's why I hung onto that phone clear until the iPhone 6S came out. Because by that time, I actually seen what people do with the iPhone, The iphone lasts like 5 years, and the Android devices were disposable (18mo life), that did not jive with my desire to buy a phone and hang onto it for as long as needed.

 

The iPhone today can entirely replace your vehicle entertainment/navigation system, your laptop, your camera, your video camera, your ebook reader, your GPS, your music player, your video game console, and none of these require additional costs to use. It can also replace your wallet (credit, debit, loyalty cards), car keys, house keys, garage door opener, light switches, and so forth, if you make smart choices about what products you use, but there's been market resistance (or rather heel dragging) for some of these, due to valid privacy complaints versus merchants rights to sell your data for using their cards/store-brand cards. A $2000 phone replaces about $5000 in individual pieces of equipment. Android can do that too but, has never actually done anything to improve it's user experience or software ecosystem except in reaction to Apple.

 

Nearly every single report about "Android is better" focuses on things that most customers do not do, and do not care about. Things like customization, sideloading and third-party firmware, the average person does not care about. The only people who care about these are tech people who like to tinker, and pirates. Reports on why iPhone is better always end up focusing on the ease of use and included tools that just work out of the box without subscriptions or IAP's.

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

-snip-

doesn't disprove my point. People want openess and choice, we just have it in small areas at the moment, does that mean that was Apple has done for the industry is wrong? no. But i don't think there would be many people outside of the super hardcore <company> fanboys that would say "I DONT WANT CHOICE, I ONLY WANY TO CONSUME PRODUCT AND BE TOLD WHAT I WANT!".

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

That doesn't make it special, it was anti trust  when they were dealing with their own product in their own market.

If you ignore the lawsuit sure.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

When the EU forced them to unbundle ie and fined them.

Except they still bundle IE with windows... Along with Edge. 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

 

Again you are going back to arguing the whole market,  The complaints are specifically about in-app transactions being hit with a 30% fee and no way around it.    I know you like to bang on about steam, but you don;t need steam to sell a game on the C, you don;t have to sell your game through the PSN or xbox live store.  and you can have external sources of payment on many of these services. 

You mean like there's no way around it on Sony's platform either? It doesn't matter what you pay with Sony will still get a cut, only difference is that in physical sales they share the cut with the retailer, the devs get nothing extra. Doesn't matter if you pay by card or pennies sony still gets their cut.

 

Notice I haven't banged on about steam, I've mentioned their charges but haven't banged on about them,  because PC isn't a closed system whereas consoles are. 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

I Have thoroughly addressed everything.

Nope you're ignoring points you don't want to answer and inventing stuff  like me banging on about steam whereas I've mostly mentioned Sony.

[Kisai]

16 minutes ago, Arika S said:

doesn't disprove my point. People want openess and choice, we just have it in small areas at the moment, does that mean that was Apple has done for the industry is wrong? no. But i don't think there would be many people outside of the super hardcore <company> fanboys that would say "I DONT WANT CHOICE, I ONLY WANY TO CONSUME PRODUCT AND BE TOLD WHAT I WANT!".

No, people want "ease of use", and will readily buy anything that meets that need. You do not need a $2000 phone to make a phone call, landlines are still a thing you can plug a $10 analog phone into. You do not need a $2000 phone to install software you compiled yourself, laptops and desktops still exist. You do not need a $2000 phone to film an independent film, but you can certainly do it without the investment in the $50,000 cameras commercial productions would have. 

 

The only thing unique about the situation with Apple is that people have picked "the better thing", and don't actually care or want third party stores. That "choice" exists, and nobody cared enough to install Cydia any more than they care to install a third party firmware on an Android device.

 

[Lord Vile]

24 minutes ago, Arika S said:

doesn't disprove my point. People want openess and choice, we just have it in small areas at the moment, does that mean that was Apple has done for the industry is wrong? no. But i don't think there would be many people outside of the super hardcore <company> fanboys that would say "I DONT WANT CHOICE, I ONLY WANY TO CONSUME PRODUCT AND BE TOLD WHAT I WANT!".

Apart from they don't. People don't know what they want and smart buinessesmen (Henry Ford and Steve Jobs for example) realise that. As mentioned before people didn't want the iPhone design if you asked them they'd want a Blackberry or Sony Ericsson W series or a Nokia cameraphone with 32MP even though the number meant nothing. People THINK they want choice but 90% of the time they will go with what they know rather than try something new. Better the devil you know instead of the angel you don't and all that. 

[Kisai]

20 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Apart from they don't. People don't know what they want and smart buinessesmen (Henry Ford and Steve Jobs for example) realise that. As mentioned before people didn't want the iPhone design if you asked them they'd want a Blackberry or Sony Ericsson W series or a Nokia cameraphone with 32MP even though the number meant nothing. People THINK they want choice but 90% of the time they will go with what they know rather than try something new. Better the devil you know instead of the angel you don't and all that. 

Just to add, people, particuarly business users have been complaining ever since the iPhone came out that they want their Blackberry-like keyboards back, but the reason they haven't come back is because those keyboards are expensive to make and utterly no better than the software keyboard which can also support any language.

 

edit: The internet, i swear... BlackBerry 5G smartphone with physical keyboard is coming next year

https://mashable.com/article/blackberry-5g-keyboard-2021/

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

If you ignore the lawsuit sure.

The lawsuit is integral to showing it was a monopoly practice,  there was nothing special about that.  It highlights perfectly why what apple are doing is also a monopoly practice.  Intel told OEM they would suffer lack of sales if they didn't exclusively buy INtel,  Apple are telling customers they'll lose sales to IOS customers if they don't agree tot all the terms of the app store.  Exactly the same thing.

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

Except they still bundle IE with windows... Along with Edge. 

Only after major changes to the way the OS works.  And they are still in hot water about frequently.

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

You mean like there's no way around it on Sony's platform either? It doesn't matter what you pay with Sony will still get a cut, only difference is that in physical sales they share the cut with the retailer, the devs get nothing extra. Doesn't matter if you pay by card or pennies sony still gets their cut.

Ahh,  so you do understand at least some of the problem, you just don't think it applies to apple. 

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

Notice I haven't banged on about steam, I've mentioned their charges but haven't banged on about them,  because PC isn't a closed system whereas consoles are. 

So you also agree apple is a closed system, a closed system that developers are held ransom too,  I mean if it is bad for sony then it has to bad for apple too right?  Or are you only paying the whataboutism game?  What about sony?  who cares, they could be breaking 50 more laws right this second and that doesn't make what apple are doing any more just.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

Nope you're ignoring points you don't want to answer and inventing stuff  like me banging on about steam whereas I've mostly mentioned Sony.

I have addressed all your points.  I even addressed the sony points right back at the start.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

Customers don't want locked down systems, they put up with them, they want openess and choice, that's literally the whole reason why FOSS has become as big as it has. Also to use a quote from Jobs...the guy who implemented such a systems, doesn't give credit to your argument

 

The quote is also just saying "people don't know what they want until we show them, but when they see what they want, we just ignore them and keep doing our own thing". 

 

Certainly seems like someone who doesn't care about customers.

When I bought my first android I was NOT buying into the google snooping, I certainly wasn't buying into an app store monopoly (google has one too, try being an average consumer with an android without a google account), As far as I was concerned I was buying a phone, not a damned ecosystem.

 

When people buy an iphone, they are NOT buying into a notion that they are going to pay 30% more for ALL their apps in a locked down system,  they are merely buying a phone.

 

This whole argument that consumers are choosing a monopoly is fucking ludicrous,  I guarantee if you ask them,  very very very few would say they are happy paying 30% more and be locked into anything. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When I bought my first android I was NOT buying into the google snooping, I certainly wasn't buying into an app store monopoly (google has one too, try being an average consumer with an android without a google account), As far as I was concerned I was buying a phone, not a damned ecosystem.

 

When people buy an iphone, they are NOT buying into a notion that they are going to pay 30% more for ALL their apps in a locked down system,  they are merely buying a phone.

 

This whole argument that consumers are choosing a monopoly is fucking ludicrous,  I guarantee if you ask them,  very very very few would say they are happy paying 30% more and be locked into anything. 

I don't use any pairs apps, but not being able to buy stuff with Amazon sucks. One guy said you could, but I can't on audible.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

I don't use any pairs apps, but not being able to buy stuff with Amazon sucks. One guy said you could, but I can't on audible.

It really does my head in how anyone can argue for a monopoly that reduces consumer choice in any way, shape or form.

 

Even if we ignore the intricacies of law and corporate trust cases,  what we have is multiple demonstrable cases of apps being banned from being able to be installed on ios devices (taking consumers from developers and choice from consumers) all because one company wants to make more money.   It just isn't a defensible practice. 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, mr moose said:

It really does my head in how anyone can argue for a monopoly that reduces consumer choice in any way, shape or form.

 

Even if we ignore the intricacies of law and corporate trust cases,  what we have is multiple demonstrable cases of apps being banned from being able to be installed on ios devices (taking consumers from developers and choice from consumers) all because one company wants to make more money.   It just isn't a defensible practice. 

 

I agree, and I'm stuck between my horrible experience with a note 9 and apple. I had a problem with auto calling on the note 9 (if I was texting, then put in in my pocket it would auto call 75% of the time, even If I turned off the setting) and apple being apple. I have my iPhone 8, and like it other than apple. I cannot live without airdrop, and it makes like easier.

 

I admit that Apple does software pretty good, even if they suck.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

. I have my iPhone 8, and like it other than apple.

 

This is the crux of the issue, I have zero problem with using ios or itunes or any of apples products,  I would like to say the same about android but I just can't,  I have no problem with the concept of android and the general usage.   But with both of them it's the companies behind them that aggravate me as a consumer.   Turn of GPS and google play has a conniption (we all know why),  Have a problem with your ipad and they tell you the water indicators mean it isn't covered by warranty or they tell you "it's cheaper to buy another one".  Both answers drive me nuts. Both companies are evil.

 

 

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

This is the crux of the issue, I have zero problem with using ios or itunes or any of apples products,  I would like to say the same about android but I just can't,  I have no problem with the concept of android and the general usage.   But with both of them it's the companies behind them that aggravate me as a consumer.   Turn of GPS and google play has a conniption (we all know why),  Have a problem with your ipad and they tell you the water indicators mean it isn't covered by warranty or they tell you "it's cheaper to buy another one".  Both answers drive me nuts. Both companies are evil.

 

 

 

 

My family only gets 1st party repair if we have apple Care +, and 3rd party any other time. Also, you can probably trip water damage if you leave it in the bathroom and take a shower, because of humidity.