Apple vs. Epic in Court

The legal battle between Apple and Epic over Fortnite royalties had a court hearing today, though the actual trial won't begin for real until July 2021. Reuter's summarizes today's action (thanks Hypothermia), saying the judge feels this should be put before a jury:
A federal judge in California on Monday urged Apple Inc and "Fortnite" creator Epic Games to take their antitrust dispute before a jury, saying the higher courts would be less likely to overturn the result.

“I know I'm just a stepping stone for all of you,” District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said during a virtual hearing from Oakland, California.

Epic Games sued Apple in August, alleging the iPhone maker's 30% commission on purchases made through Apple's App Store was anticompetitive. The judge's comments came during a hearing to decide whether to keep in place an emergency order saying Apple could remove "Fortnite" from the App Store but could not harm Epic's developer tool business.
View : : :
37 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
37.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 30, 2020, 12:48
Kxmode
 
37.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 30, 2020, 12:48
Sep 30, 2020, 12:48
 Kxmode
 
Jackplug wrote on Sep 30, 2020, 05:58:
who gives a shit, Fortnite is dying bigtime.

Well, now they're dying after Google and Apple removed Fortnite from their app stores. 99.99% mobile loss in 48 hours. Any remaining players will tire of being left behind on updates and likely to start playing other games by the time the case comes before the judge in July. Once mobile player addiction breaks, drawing those players back, especially with next-gen consoles on the horizon, will be nigh impossible. Epic lost more than gained. Fine by me. I just want Epic to lose the financial ability to secure third-party PC gaming exclusives.
"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." - Those Who Remain by G. Michael Hopf
Avatar 18786
36.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 30, 2020, 05:58
36.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 30, 2020, 05:58
Sep 30, 2020, 05:58
 
who gives a shit, Fortnite is dying bigtime.
Avatar 52166
35.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 17:21
35.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 17:21
Sep 29, 2020, 17:21
 
Fair enough, I misread, as I've seen some weird numbers pulled out for usage stats so I jumped to a conclusion, apologies! An interesting read, especially the portion about how Apple's growth is slowing compared to Google Play, with most of the rest honestly flying over my head (historian, not an economist). What little I might understands that if their growth is slowing, wouldn't they have a greater interesting in protecting their walled garden, and allowing Epic go about their way would seem pretty counterproductive?
34.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 17:03
Beamer
 
34.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 17:03
Sep 29, 2020, 17:03
 Beamer
 
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:30:
Beamer wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:27:
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:
Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

Then Apple can refuse to offer free to play products. Seems simple enough to me.

But wait, isn't Apple profiting through sales of their phones already for having so many 'free' apps and games available to their buyers?

Consumers lose if f2p disappears. While many of us may hate it, there are consumers that enjoy it. And there are products out there that couldn't exist without a constant revenue stream. f2p lets everyone partake - not all f2p is bad.

As for the hardware, they bake app revenue into the business model. A lot of their spending is in this area. Cut their app revenue in half and there will be repercussions in other areas. Same would go for Google, who also makes up for app revenue by collecting infinitely more data on us and selling access to us based upon that data.
33.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 17:01
Beamer
 
33.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 17:01
Sep 29, 2020, 17:01
 Beamer
 
Dwarf-Snowninja wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 16:21:
Beamer wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:27:
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:
Jonjonz wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 06:31:
People keep wrongly focusing on the up front 30% cut for selling the app/game via their store. That is not what the suit is all about.

The suit is about the store wanting after the sale 30% of any and all digital products or services purchased via the app/game forever.

That is like Walmart saying to computer and smartphone makers, we want 30% of any digital products or services purchased via the device if the device was sold in our stores.

Apple is doing every thing it can to focus the discussion on the 30% cut of the app/game sale price (which is just business as usual perfectly legal) and wants to avoid at all costs discussion of the 30% of all digital based revenue the app/game may traffic (which is a whole other, new ball game) and something I cannot justify.

Precisely this. If Apple invests in testing software to make sure it runs and make sure it's clear of malware, alongside actual distribution of said software, then sure they've earned a cut. If I choose to buy a cosmetic skin for a character in a game... why does Apple deserve 30% of that again? What did they do to earn that?

Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

It's not an easy argument on either side, despite how some seem to think it is. About 70% of mobile spending in the US is through iOS, so if you're a dev and want to reach the widest and most active audience, you need to be on Apple. But Apple also limits software to just their app store. And Apple takes an aggressive 30% of everything. This has been an issue for Amazon's app selling digital products, which they got around, but others have not. It's an issue for any video service.

At the same time, for Apple, most of these apps are free up front.

Solution, to me, seems like there are a few obvious ways. One could be a graduated plan. This would penalize small devs, but maybe it's 30% of the first million, 20% of the next million, 15% thereafter. Maybe it's 30% of the download, 15% of in-app purchases, but this would just incentivize in-app purchases (ugh.) Maybe it's allowing for separate storefronts, so Epic can have their own again, but Apple claims the walled garden is a big reason why consumers buy their products (and we can't really argue well otherwise.)

They definitely don't have 70% of the US market, its closer to 40-55% depending on the source, with a ~35% worldwide. I do agree with you Beamer that there isn't an easy solution since, as you stated, many more apps are free with in app purchases. As much as I dislike Epic, if they'd gone about this in a different matter rather than engaging in a pissing contest with Apple, they might've had a leg to stand on, but given that the judge's comments, that seems a lot less likely now.

I said of spend, not of the market.
Yes, there are a lot of Android phones out there, but Apple owners spend far more on apps than Android owners.

One source at random:
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
iOS App Store 2018 revenue came to $46.6 billon, while Google Play revenue stood at $24.8 billion by this measure
32.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 16:24
32.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 16:24
Sep 29, 2020, 16:24
 
Nullity wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 11:25:
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:30:
Nullity wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:22:
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 09:44:
The walled garden is a feature... it's why we don't want janky Android phones.
LOL, this sounds like some form of Stockholm syndrome. As VaranDragon has pointed out, Android is far from janky, just don't be stupid - the same advice that applies to using a PC. Also, it's not like iOS never had malware.
I've had over half a dozen Android phones over the years. I'm a mobile developer. I know what I'm buying into with both platforms. Android's data collection policy is criminal, that's the main reason I won't use it. There are way more loopholes to gather data than on ios. Thanks for your white knighting, tho.

It's this simple, you get what you pay for. Android is a POS, but I still have to develop for it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, Android's data collection policy is a valid concern, but that doesn't equate to a "janky" operating system. You're not the only developer who has to work with mobile devices/OS's. My personal phones have been Android for years, but I have to use both for work.

You seem to be moving the goal posts, both with janky OS -> data collection, and UX -> development. I'm not saying that comparing development experiences isn't a valid discussion in general, but that's not what was being talked about. I'd take Android over iOS for all of it. It's UI/UX (along with everything else) is highly customizable and doesn't look and feel like it was created for a toddler (since you've started injecting personal opinions, I might as well too). Mobile isn't my primary platform for development, but I do have some experience with both, and Android is quicker, easier, and less of a frustration/hassle to work with.
By janky I mean that Android caters to the lowest common denominator where Apple refuses to. Android's vision is not that of a highly configurable open system... the device and all of the wonderful things it can do is effectively just a trojan horse. Every time you use a Google product you pay a price in your privacy and security. Data mining users is entirely where Google makes it's money whereas sheep purchasing criminally expensive devices is where Apple makes theirs. What I get with an apple device is a mostly secure, well performing device that is highly configurable despite what Android users will tell you. I want to be in a walled garden when I'm using this device to capture my biometrics, manage my finances and make my purchases. I want developers to be held to the highest standards because I know they won't if they don't have to. And if I want completely customizability, I can join the .000001% of iPhone users that jailbreaks their device (which I've done for ages but no longer have a need).
Avatar 20018
31.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 16:21
31.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 16:21
Sep 29, 2020, 16:21
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:27:
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:
Jonjonz wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 06:31:
People keep wrongly focusing on the up front 30% cut for selling the app/game via their store. That is not what the suit is all about.

The suit is about the store wanting after the sale 30% of any and all digital products or services purchased via the app/game forever.

That is like Walmart saying to computer and smartphone makers, we want 30% of any digital products or services purchased via the device if the device was sold in our stores.

Apple is doing every thing it can to focus the discussion on the 30% cut of the app/game sale price (which is just business as usual perfectly legal) and wants to avoid at all costs discussion of the 30% of all digital based revenue the app/game may traffic (which is a whole other, new ball game) and something I cannot justify.

Precisely this. If Apple invests in testing software to make sure it runs and make sure it's clear of malware, alongside actual distribution of said software, then sure they've earned a cut. If I choose to buy a cosmetic skin for a character in a game... why does Apple deserve 30% of that again? What did they do to earn that?

Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

It's not an easy argument on either side, despite how some seem to think it is. About 70% of mobile spending in the US is through iOS, so if you're a dev and want to reach the widest and most active audience, you need to be on Apple. But Apple also limits software to just their app store. And Apple takes an aggressive 30% of everything. This has been an issue for Amazon's app selling digital products, which they got around, but others have not. It's an issue for any video service.

At the same time, for Apple, most of these apps are free up front.

Solution, to me, seems like there are a few obvious ways. One could be a graduated plan. This would penalize small devs, but maybe it's 30% of the first million, 20% of the next million, 15% thereafter. Maybe it's 30% of the download, 15% of in-app purchases, but this would just incentivize in-app purchases (ugh.) Maybe it's allowing for separate storefronts, so Epic can have their own again, but Apple claims the walled garden is a big reason why consumers buy their products (and we can't really argue well otherwise.)

They definitely don't have 70% of the US market, its closer to 40-55% depending on the source, with a ~35% worldwide. I do agree with you Beamer that there isn't an easy solution since, as you stated, many more apps are free with in app purchases. As much as I dislike Epic, if they'd gone about this in a different matter rather than engaging in a pissing contest with Apple, they might've had a leg to stand on, but given that the judge's comments, that seems a lot less likely now.
30.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 14:22
Kxmode
 
30.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 14:22
Sep 29, 2020, 14:22
 Kxmode
 
Hoeg Law review
"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." - Those Who Remain by G. Michael Hopf
Avatar 18786
29.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 13:08
Kxmode
 
29.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 13:08
Sep 29, 2020, 13:08
 Kxmode
 
VaranDragon wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 05:10:
Kxmode wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 02:49:
VaranDragon wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 02:16:
To all of you who have a horse to back in this race, what gives? Why do you give a shit? To me they both deserve what they get, if this dredges up a whole lot of unwholesome corporate shit to the surface, even better. If it doesn't, why support either?

I don't care about either company, nor do I care about mobile gaming. However, as a PC gamer, I love this case for the financial harm it will bring Epic, and I hope Apple harms them enough to take away Epic's ability to do third-party EGS exclusives. On the day Epic announced EGS, I was hopeful for merit-based competition against Steam and figured if any company could do it, Epic would. However, going into January 2019 (via the Metro Exodus debacle), it became clear Epic wasn't going for merit-based competition and became toxic to us. So I am all for Apple hurting Epic to stop them from taking away our choices.

To clarify, I don't want Apple to put Epic out of business, I want Apple to take away their ability to do exclusives.

Why are EGS exclusives such an eyesore for you? Can you rationally explain this?

EGS exclusivity takes away choice. It forces me to purchase a game on an objectively inferior platform or wait six months to a year (or possibly never) until it appears on my chosen platform.
"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." - Those Who Remain by G. Michael Hopf
Avatar 18786
28.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 12:46
Verno
 
28.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 12:46
Sep 29, 2020, 12:46
 Verno
 
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:
Precisely this. If Apple invests in testing software to make sure it runs and make sure it's clear of malware, alongside actual distribution of said software, then sure they've earned a cut. If I choose to buy a cosmetic skin for a character in a game... why does Apple deserve 30% of that again? What did they do to earn that?

Built and maintained an entire hardware/software platform with a CapEx in the billions every year. We can quibble about the rate as I personally believe 30% is far too high but they've definitely earned something. Same goes for Google.

If alternative storefronts that are distributed via the Play/App Stores are going to be an officially supported thing as many here seem to desire as a solution, they should still have to kick something up to the parent company IMO. The platform holder is the one who must assure security and vet apps, if nothing else that is absolutely worth something when you look at how integrated into society phones are now.
Playing: Risk of Rain 2, Jedi Fallen Order, Last of Us II
Watching: Tenet, Peninsula, The Pale Door
Avatar 51617
27.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 11:32
27.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 11:32
Sep 29, 2020, 11:32
 
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:30:
I know what I'm buying into with both platforms. Android's data collection policy is criminal, that's the main reason I won't use it. There are way more loopholes to gather data than on ios.

Pretty much why I'm switching to a Linux phone as soon as they are ready for prime time (Pinephone (most likely) or possibly a Librem 5).

Yeah I could get an old 2013 nexus 5 with ubuntu touch (ubports)... but I rather get newer hardware, so I will wait for the pure linux contenders that I just listed.
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!
Avatar 19499
26.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 11:25
26.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 11:25
Sep 29, 2020, 11:25
 
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:30:
Nullity wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:22:
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 09:44:
The walled garden is a feature... it's why we don't want janky Android phones.
LOL, this sounds like some form of Stockholm syndrome. As VaranDragon has pointed out, Android is far from janky, just don't be stupid - the same advice that applies to using a PC. Also, it's not like iOS never had malware.
I've had over half a dozen Android phones over the years. I'm a mobile developer. I know what I'm buying into with both platforms. Android's data collection policy is criminal, that's the main reason I won't use it. There are way more loopholes to gather data than on ios. Thanks for your white knighting, tho.

It's this simple, you get what you pay for. Android is a POS, but I still have to develop for it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, Android's data collection policy is a valid concern, but that doesn't equate to a "janky" operating system. You're not the only developer who has to work with mobile devices/OS's. My personal phones have been Android for years, but I have to use both for work.

You seem to be moving the goal posts, both with janky OS -> data collection, and UX -> development. I'm not saying that comparing development experiences isn't a valid discussion in general, but that's not what was being talked about. I'd take Android over iOS for all of it. It's UI/UX (along with everything else) is highly customizable and doesn't look and feel like it was created for a toddler (since you've started injecting personal opinions, I might as well too). Mobile isn't my primary platform for development, but I do have some experience with both, and Android is quicker, easier, and less of a frustration/hassle to work with.
Avatar 58038
25.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:37
25.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:37
Sep 29, 2020, 10:37
 
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:32:
Nullity wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:22:
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 09:44:
The walled garden is a feature... it's why we don't want janky Android phones.
LOL, this sounds like some form of Stockholm syndrome. As VaranDragon has pointed out, Android is far from janky, just don't be stupid - the same advice that applies to using a PC. Also, it's not like iOS never had malware.

Take a look at the state of the world currently and the US specifically. Don't be stupid is a bar too high for a lot of people.
Amazing coloration. I never thought to compare mobile phone purchasing decisions with my political affiliations.
Avatar 20018
24.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:32
24.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:32
Sep 29, 2020, 10:32
 
Nullity wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:22:
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 09:44:
The walled garden is a feature... it's why we don't want janky Android phones.
LOL, this sounds like some form of Stockholm syndrome. As VaranDragon has pointed out, Android is far from janky, just don't be stupid - the same advice that applies to using a PC. Also, it's not like iOS never had malware.

Take a look at the state of the world currently and the US specifically. Don't be stupid is a bar too high for a lot of people.
23.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:31
23.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:31
Sep 29, 2020, 10:31
 
While not a fan of Epic or TSween, some of their business practices with regards to the Unreal engine have been good for gaming. They are not the good guys.

On the other hand, I've detested Apple since the 80's/90's due to their draconian proprietary model and quest to limit the user experience to a sanitized and boringly curated state.

Hopefully Epic's move has an end result that legally forces a shift in Apple's approach to the market.....and Epic loses billions in the process. Win/win.
Avatar 56308
22.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:30
22.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:30
Sep 29, 2020, 10:30
 
Nullity wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:22:
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 09:44:
The walled garden is a feature... it's why we don't want janky Android phones.
LOL, this sounds like some form of Stockholm syndrome. As VaranDragon has pointed out, Android is far from janky, just don't be stupid - the same advice that applies to using a PC. Also, it's not like iOS never had malware.
I've had over half a dozen Android phones over the years. I'm a mobile developer. I know what I'm buying into with both platforms. Android's data collection policy is criminal, that's the main reason I won't use it. There are way more loopholes to gather data than on ios. Thanks for your white knighting, tho.

It's this simple, you get what you pay for. Android is a POS, but I still have to develop for it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Avatar 20018
21.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:30
21.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:30
Sep 29, 2020, 10:30
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:27:
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:
Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

Then Apple can refuse to offer free to play products. Seems simple enough to me.

But wait, isn't Apple profiting through sales of their phones already for having so many 'free' apps and games available to their buyers?
20.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:27
Beamer
 
20.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:27
Sep 29, 2020, 10:27
 Beamer
 
Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:
Jonjonz wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 06:31:
People keep wrongly focusing on the up front 30% cut for selling the app/game via their store. That is not what the suit is all about.

The suit is about the store wanting after the sale 30% of any and all digital products or services purchased via the app/game forever.

That is like Walmart saying to computer and smartphone makers, we want 30% of any digital products or services purchased via the device if the device was sold in our stores.

Apple is doing every thing it can to focus the discussion on the 30% cut of the app/game sale price (which is just business as usual perfectly legal) and wants to avoid at all costs discussion of the 30% of all digital based revenue the app/game may traffic (which is a whole other, new ball game) and something I cannot justify.

Precisely this. If Apple invests in testing software to make sure it runs and make sure it's clear of malware, alongside actual distribution of said software, then sure they've earned a cut. If I choose to buy a cosmetic skin for a character in a game... why does Apple deserve 30% of that again? What did they do to earn that?

Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

It's not an easy argument on either side, despite how some seem to think it is. About 70% of mobile spending in the US is through iOS, so if you're a dev and want to reach the widest and most active audience, you need to be on Apple. But Apple also limits software to just their app store. And Apple takes an aggressive 30% of everything. This has been an issue for Amazon's app selling digital products, which they got around, but others have not. It's an issue for any video service.

At the same time, for Apple, most of these apps are free up front.

Solution, to me, seems like there are a few obvious ways. One could be a graduated plan. This would penalize small devs, but maybe it's 30% of the first million, 20% of the next million, 15% thereafter. Maybe it's 30% of the download, 15% of in-app purchases, but this would just incentivize in-app purchases (ugh.) Maybe it's allowing for separate storefronts, so Epic can have their own again, but Apple claims the walled garden is a big reason why consumers buy their products (and we can't really argue well otherwise.)
19.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:26
19.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:26
Sep 29, 2020, 10:26
 
Kxmode wrote on Sep 28, 2020, 23:55:
Apple argued that iOS is just one of many platforms in the wider competitive market for video games like Fortnite. There, Apple faces competition from console makers, PC-based stores like Steam and GOG, and Google's Android platform to name just a few. In this market, Rogers herself noted that most of the competing platforms charge the same 30 percent fee to developers as Apple, suggesting iOS lacks any harmful market-controlling power.

Epic's lawyer Gary Bornstein argued in response that the market in question should not simply be viewed as "all the ways someone can reach a user to play a video game." Where Apple holds the monopoly, he said, is in the market for developers to distribute their game to iOS users, specifically.

"In order for Apple to face competitive discipline [from the market], it would mean there would need to be a meaningful number of developers who would give up the platform if Apple raises its price," Bornstein argued. "We know that's not the case. They're not going to give up the opportunity to reach a billion users."

source

This is 100% a correct legal argument. the argument idiots are making suggesting that epic should just go make their own phones is absurd apple fanboyism. It's like suggesting if you don't like steam, go ahead and invent your own computer, convince millions to buy and use it, if you don't like the price being charged. Developers can't change systems like that because of a disagreement in cost with Apple just like users aren't going to throw their Apple phone in the garbage and buy a different one if they disapprove of the situation. They've already invested in a $1000 device as a user and the developer has already invested many thousands if not millions of dollars in hiring and training staff to produce products on IOS as well as marketing, brand recognition within the market, etc.

It's not as simple as just "go to another store and sell your stuff". That's why it's a monopoly and that's why it's SUPPOSED to be illegal. Love all the devoted American capitalists that croon for the 'free market' but shriek in terror if you suggest that Apple is literally engaging in the opposite.
18.
 
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court
Sep 29, 2020, 10:22
18.
Re: Apple vs. Epic in Court Sep 29, 2020, 10:22
Sep 29, 2020, 10:22
 
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 09:44:
The walled garden is a feature... it's why we don't want janky Android phones.
LOL, this sounds like some form of Stockholm syndrome. As VaranDragon has pointed out, Android is far from janky, just don't be stupid - the same advice that applies to using a PC. Also, it's not like iOS never had malware.
Avatar 58038
37 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older