Epic v. Apple Analysis

The Epic Games v. Apple Inc. judgment is now online, with the outcome of the Antitrust trial over Apple's governance of its App Store. As mentioned earlier, part of this stops Apple from preventing apps from offering alternate payment methods. But there's more to it than that. A tweet from Jason Schreier has some perspective, saying this is a lose/lose:
So Epic lost on just about every count & will have to pay millions, while Apple now has to let apps use external payment processors, potentially costing them billions.

Big win for everyone who was rooting for both companies to lose
View : : :
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
22.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 19:08
Kxmode
 
22.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 19:08
Sep 11, 2021, 19:08
 Kxmode
 
Jonjonz wrote on Sep 11, 2021, 06:33:
Epic basically won, they willingly knew this would cost them bucks, but they stand to gain so much more via Fortnite revenue for copies bought via Apple.

That's not going to happen. The judgment is a case of "win the battle, but lose the war."

The judgment acknowledged that Epic violated Apple's App store agreements. It is now Apple's decision if they want to let Fortnite back on IOS. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The judge's decision also extends to Play. Google is likely to follow suit and not to allow Fortnite back on Play. Apple and Google don't want to do business with Epic. So, in the end, Epic lost money it owes Apple, and they've lost income from not having Fortnite on App Store and Play. I say, all in all, I'm happy with that outcome. Hopefully, the financial damage is enough to prevent Epic from securing anti-consumer, anti-choice third-party exclusives.
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
21.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 14:48
21.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 14:48
Sep 11, 2021, 14:48
 
Why does the Supreme Court refuse to hear certain cases? Legal scholars cite three basic reasons:

1. Agreement with the lower court decision

The court could easily find nothing wrong with the lower court’s decision.

2. Issue not significant enough to warrant Supreme Court intervention

Every year, litigants appeal or file over 7,000 cases with the Supreme Court. The court eventually accepts approximately 100. Of course, the court will only accept those cases with significant legal, societal, or political consequences.

3. Court not ready to hear issue

Some legal issues need time to season. For example, civil rights cases would have met great resistance prior to the 1950s.
https://www.foxessays.com/why-does-the-supreme-court-refuse-to-hear-certain-cases/
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
20.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 14:24
20.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 14:24
Sep 11, 2021, 14:24
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 11, 2021, 10:31:
Or when there are opposing rulings from different courts/states and they believe they should decide the matter. Any way you see it, it is unlikely Epic or Apple will stop until the Supremes make a decision, even if that decision is to not make a decision.
If SCOTUS decides not to accept the case that is them saying that the case itself has no real impact on the legal system. It doesn't say anything about the merits of the case or the outcome.
19.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 14:15
19.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 14:15
Sep 11, 2021, 14:15
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 11, 2021, 10:31:
Or when there are opposing rulings from different courts/states and they believe they should decide the matter. Any way you see it, it is unlikely Epic or Apple will stop until the Supremes make a decision, even if that decision is to not make a decision.
Honestly, there are enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with this, it's just that no enforcement has been forthcoming from the government. The courts shouldn't even be involved.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
18.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 10:31
18.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 10:31
Sep 11, 2021, 10:31
 
Or when there are opposing rulings from different courts/states and they believe they should decide the matter. Any way you see it, it is unlikely Epic or Apple will stop until the Supremes make a decision, even if that decision is to not make a decision.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
17.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 08:53
17.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 08:53
Sep 11, 2021, 08:53
 
roguebanshee wrote on Sep 11, 2021, 08:19:
SCOTUS refusing to look at a case could also boil down to them not thinking there's an important enough legal question.

Right, SCOTUS only takes up a case, basically, where there's a greater question to be answered. I don't think there is, here.
16.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 08:19
16.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 08:19
Sep 11, 2021, 08:19
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 21:40:
Leahi84 wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 21:32:
Who says this is going to the supreme court? I don't know if they'd even take a case like this. Also it depends on how the Supreme court views apple, if they are seen as a left leaning company at all they might lose. Either way, it's rather presumptuous of you to assume Apple will ultimately win out.
Well, I doubt either side would stop before getting there. If the Supremes refuse an appeal, that's them saying it wouldn't change if they did take it. And as is the case even for us lowly common humans, not making a decision is in of itself, a decision.
SCOTUS refusing to look at a case could also boil down to them not thinking there's an important enough legal question.
15.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 08:05
El Pit
 
15.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 08:05
Sep 11, 2021, 08:05
 El Pit
 
We need a fusion: Crapplic! Make it happen. All problems solved. 51% of shares owned by 0.10$, of course.
"There is no right life in the wrong one." (Theodor W. Adorno, philosopher)
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." (Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jedi)
14.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 06:33
14.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 06:33
Sep 11, 2021, 06:33
 
Man this jerk is so one sided. Epic basically won, they willingly knew this would cost them bucks, but they stand to gain so much more via Fortnite revenue for copies bought via Apple.

Common sense should have shut down Crapples practice of wanting any online transactions via products sold via it's store to go through them and take a 30% cut. What if Amazon showed up one day and told every body that bought Quicken through them that, you owed them 30% of any thing you cut a check in Quicken for, even your taxes?
"Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss." - The Who.
Avatar 57379
13.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 02:49
Kxmode
 
13.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 02:49
Sep 11, 2021, 02:49
 Kxmode
 
Judgement, page 2:

---

Central to antitrust cases is the appropriate determination of the "relevant market." Epic
Games structured its lawsuit to argue that Apple does not compete with anyone; it is a monopoly
of one. Apple, by contrast, argues that the effective area of competition is the market for all
digital video games in which it and Epic Games compete heavily. In the digital video game
market, Apple argues that it does not enjoy monopoly power, and therefore does not violate
federal and state law.

The Court disagrees with both parties' definition of the relevant market.

Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market
here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple's own internal
operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion
industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games' motive in bringing this action. Having
penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games' next target
and it views Apple as an impediment.

---

That hit the nail on the head. It is very well written and concise.
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
12.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 02:21
Kxmode
 
12.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 02:21
Sep 11, 2021, 02:21
 Kxmode
 
So Epic lost on just about every count & will have to pay millions

I'm pretty certain it'll be way more than "millions." Hopefully enough to cripple their ability to do third-party exclusives. That's all I wanted.
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
11.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 00:48
11.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 00:48
Sep 11, 2021, 00:48
 
thats me, btw

so yeh, im happy
Avatar 59547
10.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 11, 2021, 00:24
10.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 11, 2021, 00:24
Sep 11, 2021, 00:24
 
Leahi84 wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 21:32:
Cutter wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 20:27:
Given the conservative bent of the SCOTUS I can foresee this going there and Apple prevailing in the current political client. Beyond that Epic lost everything else. So Apple lost one thing and that probably won't stand either. Sounds like a win for them to me.
Who says this is going to the supreme court? I don't know if they'd even take a case like this. Also it depends on how the Supreme court views apple, if they are seen as a left leaning company at all they might lose. Either way, it's rather presumptuous of you to assume Apple will ultimately win out.

There's no reason SCOTUS would listen to this
9.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 10, 2021, 23:54
9.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 10, 2021, 23:54
Sep 10, 2021, 23:54
 
evil vs demon
“I am not a Mac user unless under duress.” - John Carmack
Avatar 58298
8.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 10, 2021, 23:07
8.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 10, 2021, 23:07
Sep 10, 2021, 23:07
 
Leahi84 wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 21:32:
Cutter wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 20:27:
Given the conservative bent of the SCOTUS I can foresee this going there and Apple prevailing in the current political client. Beyond that Epic lost everything else. So Apple lost one thing and that probably won't stand either. Sounds like a win for them to me.
Who says this is going to the supreme court? I don't know if they'd even take a case like this. Also it depends on how the Supreme court views apple, if they are seen as a left leaning company at all they might lose. Either way, it's rather presumptuous of you to assume Apple will ultimately win out.
Correct or not, that would be suicide by the conservative court, it would mean they would lose the financial support of corporations.
All of a sudden anyone can sue a corporation with impunity and open the flood gates. The last thing corporations want is having to deal with
or pay out against every antitrust accusation. I.e. going after a corp liberal or not, opens the gates to conservative corps too, and that makes all corps hate them.
The worst criminal in human history, undeniably.
Ain't no tweetin, in jail jammies!
Avatar 1858
7.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 10, 2021, 21:40
7.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 10, 2021, 21:40
Sep 10, 2021, 21:40
 
Leahi84 wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 21:32:
Who says this is going to the supreme court? I don't know if they'd even take a case like this. Also it depends on how the Supreme court views apple, if they are seen as a left leaning company at all they might lose. Either way, it's rather presumptuous of you to assume Apple will ultimately win out.
Well, I doubt either side would stop before getting there. If the Supremes refuse an appeal, that's them saying it wouldn't change if they did take it. And as is the case even for us lowly common humans, not making a decision is in of itself, a decision.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
6.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 10, 2021, 21:35
6.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 10, 2021, 21:35
Sep 10, 2021, 21:35
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 20:51:
My analysis: Until the Supremes rule, or one of the parties cries "uncle", all of this is nothing but gums flapping...
Heh, for sure.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
5.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 10, 2021, 21:32
5.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 10, 2021, 21:32
Sep 10, 2021, 21:32
 
Cutter wrote on Sep 10, 2021, 20:27:
Given the conservative bent of the SCOTUS I can foresee this going there and Apple prevailing in the current political client. Beyond that Epic lost everything else. So Apple lost one thing and that probably won't stand either. Sounds like a win for them to me.
Who says this is going to the supreme court? I don't know if they'd even take a case like this. Also it depends on how the Supreme court views apple, if they are seen as a left leaning company at all they might lose. Either way, it's rather presumptuous of you to assume Apple will ultimately win out.
4.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 10, 2021, 20:51
4.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 10, 2021, 20:51
Sep 10, 2021, 20:51
 
My analysis: Until the Supremes rule, or one of the parties cries "uncle", all of this is nothing but gums flapping...
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
3.
 
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis
Sep 10, 2021, 20:39
3.
Re: Epic v. Apple Analysis Sep 10, 2021, 20:39
Sep 10, 2021, 20:39
 
Wait, wft the people win, no fucking way! Faint
The worst criminal in human history, undeniably.
Ain't no tweetin, in jail jammies!
Avatar 1858
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older