Benzer wrote on Oct 11, 2021, 17:49:
Epic: We believe the system is broken and should be changed.

Kxmode: The system can't be broken. It is the system.

The Court: We disagree with you, Epic, as the law stipulates.

It is not my "opinion." The system created the legal framework for companies to operate under. In the case of Apple v Epic, the court found Apple has not violated the law, except in the case of preventing companies from promoting alternate payments processes outside of an app. On that count, I agree with the court. That's hardly considered "the system is broken."

Epic: We believe the system is broken and should be changed.

Kxmode: The system can't be broken. It is the system.

Jonjonz wrote on Oct 10, 2021, 06:39:
Justice to me in this case would be if Crapple loses and can no longer require apps sold in thier store to give them a 30% cut for infinity of any purchases made through the app. They can charge whatever the hell they want to sell an app, but they really have no legitimate claim to revenue from game microtransactions.

So you want a company to benefit from the App Store ecosystem and platform Apple created from scratch and has iterated upon over the years for free? In what business world do you think this would be acceptable? The B2B world doesn't operate like this. B2B services cost a lot of money. 30% is how much it costs, per transaction, to do business on many digital platforms.

Jonjonz wrote on Oct 10, 2021, 06:39:
But Crapple like Gucci has boatloads of money, and that is what drives the US justice system. A judge and a few lawyers are going to retire wealthy on this.

As the Judge pointed out in her ruling, "Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal." page 2

Justice to me in this case would be if Crapple loses and can no longer require apps sold in thier store to give them a 30% cut for infinity of any purchases made through the app. They can charge whatever the hell they want to sell an app, but they really have no legitimate claim to revenue from game microtransactions.

But Crapple like Gucci has boatloads of money, and that is what drives the US justice system. A judge and a few lawyers are going to retire wealthy on this.

I still say if both sides are unhappy with it, it's probably a decent compromise.

Huzsar wrote on Oct 9, 2021, 22:18:
To me this is like if Microsoft decided to force everyone to use their windows store for all new application installations

They would have if they could. MS has a long history of doing crap like that. That possibility scared valve enough at the time of the store introduction that they did the whole steam machine. The problem was that MS half assed the store so much, despite shoving it down people's throats it never took off. So in the end it became a "if you can't beat them join them" thing.

This comment was edited on Oct 10, 2021, 10:22.

Apple vs. Epic ruling reveals 70% of App Store revenue comes from a small fraction of customers playing games: link

Apple gets to pick and choose who they will give discounts to (like they do with some streaming services). So if 70 percent of app store revenue is from the games industry, it is because Apple has made the choice to impose a tax on those companies over those other companies. Apple has zero competition on their hardware so they can set whatever price their customers are willing to pay, and their decision is that the people playing games on their platform should pay for the services that Apple profits the most from, for the entire company at that if I recall correctly, and so anyone on that hardware that doesn't use any of that or buy anything from the app store is literally subsidized mostly by the games industry on the platform. These services that Apple is profiting the greatest from are also services that Epic runs on its own servers for other platforms.

This is like Gordon Ramsey barging into your kitchen and demanding that you go eat at his fancy restaurant because the town you live in has an exclusive dining deal with his restaurant. Epic doesn't want to pay Apple's enormously inflated "costs" of running the services when they already do it at a small fraction of the cost on other platforms. If Apple wasn't allowed to have monopoly power over the user's ability to install software to their phones, then it wouldn't cost Apple anything; it wouldn't burden their bottom line; they just won't be able levy whomever they decide for whatever reason they desire. Naturally, if they were to want to maintain their same profit margins, they would have to get it from one of their other revenue streams, such as their phone and table hardware sales. Thus, the people who now don't pay a dime to their app store, will have to pay more to get their device, the over all cost scales with the number of devices, rather than scaling with how much you spend on buying games.

I don't understand why anyone would willingly invite and defend a 3rd party company to take an arbitrary cut on a monetary transaction based solely on the hardware involved. That would be like Nvidia or Samsung wanting a cut every time I make a purchase online, all because I have a Samsung for a monitor and Nvidia for a graphics card. Would anyone use E-Bay if they demanded a 30% cut on all transactions? Do people really want to pay that 30% Apple Tax when using the App Store? No one wanted to have received the right to install whatever they desired on their phone when they made their purchase?

BIGtrouble77 wrote on Oct 9, 2021, 19:47:

FloodAnxiety wrote on Oct 9, 2021, 15:02:
I hope Apple loses their appeal. If this means Apple will have to sell their phones for a higher price to make up for their lost profits, then I am all for that. The games industry should not have to subsidize non-gamers on Apple platforms.

WTF does this even mean? If anything, Epic wants Apple to subsidize their presence on the AppStore.

I am not fan of Epic, but no, they do not. If anything they want to be able to sideload their own store on the phone and bypass the AppStore completely, however Apple does not allow this claiming it would compromise their security. a pure BS statement since they allow installing any apps on their computers yet somehow that does not compromise their security there. To me this is like if Microsoft decided to force everyone to use their windows store for all new application installations, no more GoG or Epic or Steam stores allowed since that would be a competition.
Epic is suing Google too but they just claim that they make sideloading difficult for the user, though I would disagree with that, as its simple to bypass with some simple instructions for the regulars users. Apple on the other hand is way worse, and I hope they completely loose this appeal, not for Epic but for any other developer from being forced to use their overpriced payment methods.
I remember when Microsoft got into trouble for making IE a default and integrated browser on Windows for being monopolistic, but now somehow Apple forcing everyone to user their store and payment methods is not?

This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2021, 23:18.

FloodAnxiety wrote on Oct 9, 2021, 15:02:
I hope Apple loses their appeal. If this means Apple will have to sell their phones for a higher price to make up for their lost profits, then I am all for that. The games industry should not have to subsidize non-gamers on Apple platforms.

WTF does this even mean? If anything, Epic wants Apple to subsidize their presence on the AppStore.

Apple will win this on appeal.

Apple: We Won!
and
Apple: We Appeal!

rotten 🍎🪱🍏🐛

I often thank myself for steering clear of Apple for the last 35 years...;) Ugh.

FloodAnxiety wrote on Oct 9, 2021, 15:02:
I hope Apple loses their appeal. If this means Apple will have to sell their phones for a higher price to make up for their lost profits, then I am all for that. The games industry should not have to subsidize non-gamers on Apple platforms.

Most mobile users make in-app purchases because it is easier and more convenient ("the path of least resistance") than going through an alternate payment processor (e.g., PayPal, app's website, etc.). I highly doubt Apple will lose a lot if they lose their appeal.

Also, you keep using the word "subsidize." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Apple has made a very solid storefront, why shouldn't they get what they are asking to put apps on their storefront?

And how the fuck am I paying (or anyone else) to subzidize non-gamers? I have a Iphone 8plus, and beyond the typical apps (bank, utilities, chat, email) how does this affect me?

I hope Apple wins. That's like me going to a Gordon Ramsey's restraunt and saying "Hey it says this plate of food is 30 dollars, but Im only going to pay 20 because I don't feel it's worth that. I mean WTF? If you don't like the app store then as Gordon Ramsey would say "Then go fuck off!"

I hope Apple loses their appeal. If this means Apple will have to sell their phones for a higher price to make up for their lost profits, then I am all for that. The games industry should not have to subsidize non-gamers on Apple platforms.