Jonjonz wrote on Feb 23, 2021, 06:44:
The justice systems in most countries now are still totally oblivious to how new technology and online markets work. Tim is indeed looking for a toe-hold when at least one of these cases goes his way when a court is more impressed with his lawyers than the underlying law and principles.
In the real world Apples "if we sell it for you, and your thing involves any online financial transaction, a) it has to go through us, and b) you owe us a cut of that in perpetuity" would never fly. Imagine buying a coffee maker from Best Buy and the fine print says from now to eternity every coffee filter you buy for it has to be bought from Best Buy or if you want to buy a coffee filter anywhere else via mail order, you have to order it through Best Buy and you have to pay Best Buy a percentage over whatever the other source is charging.
Actually, it is more like customers insisting on buying everything they want/need from Best Buy. That's what you do when you buy an iPhone. You agree you will buy everything from the Apple app store. So, if you want to sell apples to iPhone users, you have to sell them to Best Buy. And the perpetual nature in the case of software is legitimate since the big bucks are in the micro-transactions. If it wasn't for that, Epic could sell the mobile versions of the games for $0.01 and bypass the fees, leaving Apple to provide distribution without being paid.
Look like I have said before, there is no good guy in this fight. While Epic's argument might contain some limited merit, overall it is a bunch of baloney, and they know it.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan