He should have said so in the tweet. He left out the second part completely.
Basically, these are two events.
As for the first event:
- customers would have the choice between Apple Pay and Epic Pay in the Fortnite app,
- the escrow would be 30% of what goes through Epic Pay,
- Apple refused.
As for the second event:
- customers would be forced to go through Apple Pay in the Fortnite app,
- the escrow would be 30% of what goes through Apple Pay,
- Epic refused.
Tim and Zuck off on a wild adventure to rescue indie game devs from the evil clutches of The30%Cut at Castle Cookensteinhttps://archive.is/pSM1s (backup in case the WSJ link is paywalled)The social-media giant said it would provide supporting documents to Epic Games and also reiterated its opposition to Apple’s plan to restrict access to iPhone users’ personal data.www.wsj.com
Facebook will help Epic in the discovery phase of the trial by providing supporting materials. Glad to see two spunky underdogs team up.
I hate to go off topic, but yeah Facebook is livid about the new iOS privacy settings and has started a media blitz against Apple under the guise of helping small businesses. Honestly it couldn't have happened to a better company. I can only hope the incoming administration takes an antitrust hammer towards Facebook (and the other tech giants as well).It's so amazing, Facebook is mad because it no longer can secretly track everything a user does, but now has to disclose it on iPhone.
Epic and Facebook deserve each other.
I just hope they don't win because I'm going back to iPhone for my next phone haha.
Which is why they are the least bad of the three in my book. If they were ready to open up their hardware in general, from phones to tablets to laptops, and didn't actively make all their stuff work properly only inside their own ecosystem, despite that being far more profitable, then I could see them being "good". Otherwise they are just a normal, self-serving corporation, albeit one that is highly innovative and productive.To be honest, I don't see the bad in Apple being open about how ones data is used by one app.
Absolutely, it's a good thing. But then again, they lock their OS completely and act like a bridge troll when it comes to money anything.To be honest, I don't see the bad in Apple being open about how ones data is used by one app.
I'm not sure, really. Consider that Jobs and Apple have stifled innovation and pioneered a business model and software model that is single-handedly responsible for all the walled gardens that popped up since, let alone the money they have deprived countless studios of while running the open software model that could have been into the ground?None of the companies are moral champions, but Facebook is easily the worst of the three. Apple and Epic have nothing on profiting from self made political schisms and creating domestic terrorists.
I think you are conflating walled gardens with a strict model of software permissions and disclosure of data usage. I acknowledge that the later has to be either shared out of the company's goodwill or forced to do so by the platform holder, but then again I don't know that WG's are a necessary evil there.The reason I want to go back to Apple is because of their walled garden, it is the only way I can be completely sure my data is treated privately and securely.
Like sure Apple is setting in place transparency that hurts those who wants to hide things, and Apple does that just so they can benefit from it. Maybe they are making a search engine, an ad machine to go against all the big hitters, so maybe they are just being the "good guys" to attack future competition. But they are doing it in a customer friendly way. A customer who chose the Apple garden.
That's actually a great question. In one case the platform holder gets to decide what the ground rules on your hardware are, in the other you do, and are free to shoot yourself in the foot. I think in that case it's more of a question of having sane defaults, which SEl usually has.Swenhir It does sound good what you brought as an example, but I'm wondering what the difference between a walled garden and being forced to do something by the platform holder. Aren't they the same thing? Sure a fee is often associated walled gardens but that's not what I at least think of as a walled garden, its more about the checking and forcing that rules are followed set by the platform holder.