Microsoft joins Epic on the fight against Apple

[Jeppes]

7 hours ago, HarryNyquist said:

Epic played stupid games, and have won stupid prizes.

The fact that all these companies have come out "against" Apple at once makes me super suspicious about how well-organized this is. They had the suit ready in hours, an ad campaign ready in hours, multiple big-name companies with them in days, and throughout all of this, everyone has forgotten it was also nuked from the Google Play Store for the exact same reason it was nuked from the Apple App Store.

Android is not closed off. You can install the programs you want.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

6 hours ago, Escanor said:

Don't forgot Epic will charge you fee for unreal engine if you sell your game outside there store, they won't charge it for selling it on their store

Not untill your game makes more than 100k.

[Roswell]

26 minutes ago, pas008 said:

doesnt matter they still allow 3rd party

Sure, but that’s because they want people to buy the cars, not because they’re legally obligated to do so.

[Roswell]

18 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I already paid for the phone and license, I'd rather have at least some choice over what I can do with the device, so I choose Android over iOS, and well because Apple's policies on repair are terrible also.

But Apple apologists insist you don't own your phone,and developers don't own their apps. I don't like Epic either but someone needs to push against the app store monopoly and devs getting screwed over having to pay a $99 fee on top of 30% off of every sale. Apple puts unfair competition on Spofity, they tried to get more money out of Wordpress which is a free app, yet people still insist fees with no other way to obtain an app aren't monopolistic practices.

You own the phone but you don’t own their online platforms and infrastructure. Why is that difficult to understand? 
 

And again with the monopoly garbage... you can’t monopolize your own product, lol.

[Blademaster91]

No I don't own the device if a company decides to lock all app purchases into one store with no option to sideload.

The term monopoly is being used and what Apple is doing is anti-trust, developers can't avoid the 30% fee on every purchase, and choosing not to sell on one platform definitely isn't an option. The "just don't buy it" voting with your wallet doesn't work either.

As already mentioned Microsoft got sued for including IE, and Google got fined $5 billion for having Google search and Chrome on Android, so there are laws on having too much control over a platform for very good reasons.

 

[Roswell]

40 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

No I don't own the device if a company decides to lock all app purchases into one store with no option to sideload.

The term monopoly is being used and what Apple is doing is anti-trust, developers can't avoid the 30% fee on every purchase, and choosing not to sell on one platform definitely isn't an option. The "just don't buy it" voting with your wallet doesn't work either.

As already mentioned Microsoft got sued for including IE, and Google got fined $5 billion for having Google search and Chrome on Android, so there are laws on having too much control over a platform for very good reasons.

 

You know that the Microsoft case ended up solidifying their business practices, right? They appealed and continued on doing what they were doing. You’re also conflating the entire premise of that suit with Apple. They’re not related in any significant way whatsoever.

Your Google point is equally unrelated. Google was investigated because they were forcing phone makers to include GMail and other Google apps if they wanted to be able to include the Play Store. They were also paying off phone makers to exclude competitor apps and services. Regardless, this was in the EU and means little to nothing in the US legal system.

 

[Doobeedoo]

5 hours ago, BuckGup said:

The mobile market is insanely massive now and it's a huge revenue stream for many. Apple cares a lot about gaming as they have the whole Apple Arcade based around it. They also promote AR games like crazy

Nobody denying mobile market yeah. That arcade thing of theirs is subscription based and for weird and mobile games. I kinda meant it more for general gaming like PC and console where they don't exist or ever cared about gaming on MacOS for example.

[Fasterthannothing]

I don't understand how anyone can say Apple has a leg to stand on. Android has the ability to side load and they even have an app store competitor with Amazon app store that is allowed to be loaded on Android based tablets. Apple has no side loading ability and no competition for their app store. Not to mention their trash track record with frivolous lawsuits and awful app store policies.

[Lord Vile]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

People who buy Apple products are more likely to spend more money (the free model of Android is one of the reasons I think it really took off and holds more market share in terms of userbase).

That's generalisation, guessing it's more down to Apple having a bigger presence in places like America and Android dominating markets like India.

Quote

 

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

2018, revenue from app store sales were approximately 65%.  Android did have more growth than Apple in that department, but it still over 50%.

Maybe google makes money from the play store in more, google type ways rather than people actually buying stuff. plus they have large install bases in places like India.

Quote

 

Along with breaking warranties, refusal for repairs, etc.  Jailbreaking and having built in side loading are two very different things.

Not really

Quote

 

The % that Sony charges the larger companies isn't really well known.  Sony may be only charging pennies on the dollar for all we know.  Game studios such as Epic also get large volumes of cash flowing to them from the developers themselves for exclusives (and maybe some kick-backs like reduced fees), early access to hardware/sdk's.  It's just business.

They charge 30%

[spartaman64]

3 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

You know that the Microsoft case ended up solidifying their business practices, right? They appealed and continued on doing what they were doing. You’re also conflating the entire premise of that suit with Apple. They’re not related in any significant way whatsoever.

Your Google point is equally unrelated. Google was investigated because they were forcing phone makers to include GMail and other Google apps if they wanted to be able to include the Play Store. They were also paying off phone makers to exclude competitor apps and services. Regardless, this was in the EU and means little to nothing in the US legal system.

 

during the appeal the DOJ just decided not to break up microsoft and deemed them still guilty of antitrust violations. they settled out of court

[mr moose]

The stupid thing about these debates is the fact people keep coming back to fallacies to support their personal ideals.

 

Asking for an alternative to the app store does NOT mean that the current app store can't continue the way it is.  In fact by allowing uncontrolled alternatives to the app store apple would be guaranteeing their legal right to run the pp store anyway they want.  Apple fans can have their cake and eat it too in that case. 

 

Why would anyone argue that others must be controlled because they want to be controlled when said control is not necessary to maintain either the official apple ecosystem or security or whatever argument you want to make up for it.

 

 

You can use alternative app stores to the play store,  devs can put their apps anywhere they want and consumers can still get to them without being gate kept by google.  But you can still use google play exclusively and google can maintain control of it (to a certain degree) if that's what you want.

 

 

The mind numbing reality is that google have been found guilty of anti trust over their control of google play and apps when people have genuine alternatives not just to the store but to how they load apps.  If this lawsuit is brought cleanly and properly to apple it is only going to lose due to a corrupt justice system. I can fully see trump (or who ever replaces him) over ruling the courts in favor of apple on this one.

 

 

 

[divito]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The mind numbing reality is that google have been found guilty of anti trust over their control of google play

When was this?

Outside of the Aptoide complaint, which I don't recall resulting in anything, all EU "violations" I remember have been in relation to pre-installed apps, search, and AdSense. I don't think I've ever seen anything about the Play Store in antitrust talk.

[Roswell]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why would anyone argue that others must be controlled because they want to be controlled when said control is not necessary to maintain either the official apple ecosystem or security or whatever argument you want to make up for it.

People disagree with you because your stance has no basis in logic or reality. 
 

The government has no business telling companies how to develop their products. Consumers have no business demanding how companies develop their products.

Most importantly, you cannot monopolize your own product no matter how much you whine about it. There is literally zero legal precedent to back up that stupid claim.
 

With your incredibly flawed logic, Roku has illegally monopolized their Roku sticks, Nintendo has Illegally monopolized their consoles aand Samsung needs to get sued for Monopolizing their smart refrigerators.

 

You’re misguided argument aligns with some weird communist dystopia where government tells businesses how to develop their products. This is not the world we live in and it never will be. If it were to happen, you’d see the entire tech industry collapse because there would be no security in return on investment. We no longer live in the 50s where technology profits were exclusively from hardware sales.

 

[Roswell]

Just now, divito said:

When was this?

Outside of the Aptoide complaint, which I don't recall resulting in anything, all EU "violations" I remember have been in relation to pre-installed apps, search, and AdSense. I don't think I've ever seen anything about the Play Store in antitrust talk.

Google got slapped for forcing phone makers to install GMail and other apps if they wanted the license to bake in the Play Store.

[Zodiark1593]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

. I can fully see trump (or who ever replaces him) over ruling the courts in favor of apple on this one.

 

 

 

Don’t think the President has much legal jurisdiction to overturn a court ruling. Separation of powers and all. A Supreme Court Judge on the other hand...

[Kisai]

38 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Don’t think the President has much legal jurisdiction to overturn a court ruling. Separation of powers and all. A Supreme Court Judge on the other hand...

No but they have power over the DOJ to appoint people to the DOJ, which is currently it's own clownshow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Justice_appointments_by_Donald_Trump

 

Trump may not be able to go "turn the screws on Apple" but he certainly can target how do they do business with China. That business is unchanged in the digital aspect aside from where people's personal data is stored (see GDPR for EU as an example.)

 

The wierdest thing about this presidents administration is the full willingness to sabotauge american businesses and workers just because they are in blue states, or can't elect a voting representative (like DC and PR) like this president would rather a state be incinerated than actually deploy FEMA. Like, aren't there voters in all states?

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, divito said:

When was this?

Outside of the Aptoide complaint, which I don't recall resulting in anything, all EU "violations" I remember have been in relation to pre-installed apps, search, and AdSense. I don't think I've ever seen anything about the Play Store in antitrust talk.

Google got a 5B fine for app monopoly and pre installed apps on android.

1 hour ago, Vitamanic said:

People disagree with you because your stance has no basis in logic or reality. 
 

The government has no business telling companies how to develop their products. Consumers have no business demanding how companies develop their products.

Most importantly, you cannot monopolize your own product no matter how much you whine about it. There is literally zero legal precedent to back up that stupid claim.
 

With your incredibly flawed logic, Roku has illegally monopolized their Roku sticks, Nintendo has Illegally monopolized their consoles aand Samsung needs to get sued for Monopolizing their smart refrigerators.

 

You’re misguided argument aligns with some weird communist dystopia where government tells businesses how to develop their products. This is not the world we live in and it never will be. If it were to happen, you’d see the entire tech industry collapse because there would be no security in return on investment. We no longer live in the 50s where technology profits were exclusively from hardware sales.

 

I have presented a very logical case supported by links to government websites. I note in your response there you haven't link to anything and simply have done what I said you are all doing in the other thread.  Which is repeating yourselves without addressing the material issues. 

 

59 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Don’t think the President has much legal jurisdiction to overturn a court ruling. Separation of powers and all. A Supreme Court Judge on the other hand...

The POTUS has and has done it before. Obama overturned the high court and permitted apple to continue selling products with infringing IP. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Don’t think the President has much legal jurisdiction to overturn a court ruling. Separation of powers and all. A Supreme Court Judge on the other hand...

Or, most police, since they became judges recently, and forgot to inform anyone.

[straight_stewie]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yea, it's no perfect scenario and not that I agree with that business practice.  In my opinion, they should be allowed to direct to other means of purchase (but with the added stipulation that the games aren't allowed to be "free").  It's a tricky kind of thing though, as then it could open up to credit card issues (when undoubtedly a smaller developer decides to do all the credit card processing in an insecure fashion)

Well, I think we agree that it's a gray area.

And your last statement adds another level to that, and another aspect to the argument between Epic and distributors: Epic has spent alot of time and money developing their own, secure, stable, probably well executed (I haven't used their API myself), multi-platform, payment transaction system, and probably wants to allow mobile developers to use it because they built it from the perspective of perfectly integrating with their other game/app development products.

And clearly, for a company like Epic, they should be allowed to do that, especially for their own end-products.

On the other hand, Apple/Google has to ensure that they can't be held liable for the inevitable screw-ups of other organizations, and they clearly have a right to do that. They also have a right to treat everyone identically, from the big fish to the small fish.

I think, at best, we can say that the way that we, as a society, think about liability for these kinds of things, and thus the laws we have and the policies that businesses implement around them, could be improved a bit. But this is frequently the case with many things.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

9 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

50% of what exactly? Apple has 25% marketshare. I know you said "sales" but that's very vauge. What sales? microtransactions, subscriptions, free apps, paid apps, what? 

Apple has over 50% market share in the us if I remember correctly.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

9 hours ago, savagepain said:

i think they should leave the cut cause they are using ios platform which is their property epic is just throwing a hissy fit cause they want more money

Yeah, if they wanted more money, why lower prices across all platforms? 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Along with breaking warranties, refusal for repairs, etc.  Jailbreaking and having built in side loading are two very different things.

Also, if you had the latest iOS Jean this started, you couldn't jailbreak if you wanted to.

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

The wierdest thing about this presidents administration is the full willingness to sabotauge american businesses and workers just because they are in blue states, or can't elect a voting representative (like DC and PR) like this president would rather a state be incinerated than actually deploy FEMA. Like, aren't there voters in all states?

Yes, there are, but due the the stupid voting system in the USA, if you vote red, but the area is blue, your vote didn't matter (see "wanting a democracy, but not trusting the citizens enough to have just votes, so you allow a middleman, and then let the partys to rezone districts to make sure they win")

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Apple has over 50% market share in the us if I remember correctly.

not just the US, but they have half of all the lucrative markets.  trying to argue they only have 25% is both incredibly dishonest as thhe suit is in the US, but also dishonest in that the only reason android has a higher share globally is because its free so is in extreme prevalence in markets where there is no money (ergo there aren't more people buying apps on android because a significant portion of it is free in poor countries).

 

But I've pointed that out several times already and it appears people either don't understand the issue or they don't want to acknowledge it. 

[Kisai]

Just now, mr moose said:

not just the US, but they have half of all the lucrative markets.  trying to argue they only have 25% is both incredibly dishonest as thhe suit is in the US, but also dishonest in that the only reason android has a higher share globally is because its free so is in extreme prevalence in markets where there is no money (ergo there aren't more people buying apps on android because a significant portion of it is free in poor countries).

 

But I've pointed that out several times already and it appears people either don't understand the issue or they don't want to acknowledge it. 

Because you're just changing the goal posts. Either Apple has a monopoly (which it doesn't) globally. Or it doesn't. For as much as the Legal jurisdiction cares though, it only cares about the jurisdiction that the lawsuit is in. So that would probably be California if anything. (Legal doc says "Northern California"), it would have to be escalated up to some kind of federal court to really care about the US as a whole, so Epic is really being a precocious idiot as far as they've done things so far.

 

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

On the other hand, Apple/Google has to ensure that they can't be held liable for the inevitable screw-ups of other organizations, and they clearly have a right to do that. They also have a right to treat everyone identically, from the big fish to the small fish.
 

I think it would be pretty hard to hold apple or google accountable for software a person chooses to download themselves.  MS can't be held responsible unless they actually play a role in permitting it to happen (failing to update a known exploit or something like that).  So I can't see how it would apply to anyone else.