I am in favor of tearing down walled gardens but Epic being bad elsewhere matters a lot. As Epic so aptly demonstrated with its parody video, Apple too used to be the plucky underdog that was going to liberate us from the IBM monopoly.
|OT| Epic vs Apple/Google - Battle of the Tims
- Thread starter warp_
- Start date
If Epic wins, I hope someone sues Epic to open up the Fortnite store for third parties to sell their own dances, bypassing Epic's cut.
I know this last part is a joke, but on serious note, where would the sideload disappear? Many of the biggest manufacturers of Android phones don't use GMS services. Companies like Oppo and Huawei are already making phones and selling 'em without any Google services. Android is much more than GMS enabled devices, while usually people mean Android with GMS.a motion for injunction is different than the original case and honestly has a very good chance of being granted. odd that this lawyer doesn't make note or specify that this is different as all epic needs to do to get it granted is prove they meet the requirements for the injunction.
if the actions that resulted in the motion for injunction are seen by the judge as especially harsh epic would have even lighter requirements to meet to get it granted.
why would the operator of a walled garden being given full rights to that walled garden and precedent being set that banning other stores or purchase methods from your software/hardware platform be a good thing for games? i get the hate for epic here but to be rooting for the company wanting stricter anti-competitive measures to be allowed is mindboggling to me.
if apple wins, better expect sideloading on android to disappear within the week
OP
- Thread Starter
- #204
fair enough, epic will do their best to have some tricky bullshit, same as they always do. but also anyone else could open a store to compete with epic. steam could put back game purchases to their streaming app or expand it to be cloud streaming. ms can put xcloud on ios and sony could add psnow as well. heck, even devolver or itchio could open a store for smaller titles and give a proper cut to devs.
epic will have a huge amount of competition out of the gate. they are doing this mainly to give themselves 30% more cash on each vbuck purchase and also to open a store that will probably have mobile exclusives too. that will totally be their play but they won't be alone in trying to get attention and money from people looking to use their phones for games so i see the opening of the gates as a good thing for everyone.
Still not a lawyer so I might be missing lots of stuff, but there's a particular point in that laywer video that strikes a chord with me.
Forcing Apple to put Fortnite back on the store (with the Epic direct payment nonetheless) and reinstate the developer accounts would basically create a precedent where:
It's kinda like, say, a hypothetical social network has a rule against fascist content.
An account with millions of followers starts publishing fascist posts.
The social network bans that account.
That account sues the social network because, despite they have clearly violated the social network rules, they're entitled to be on it, given the fact that they have millions of followers that wouldn't otherwise be able to read their posts.
Sounds a lot like a pandora's box that we should avoid poking just for the sake of a few billionaires squabbling for a bunch of millions more or less.
Forcing Apple to put Fortnite back on the store (with the Epic direct payment nonetheless) and reinstate the developer accounts would basically create a precedent where:
- A company can't take measures against a breach of contract.
- A company is not allowed to not do business with someone.
It's kinda like, say, a hypothetical social network has a rule against fascist content.
An account with millions of followers starts publishing fascist posts.
The social network bans that account.
That account sues the social network because, despite they have clearly violated the social network rules, they're entitled to be on it, given the fact that they have millions of followers that wouldn't otherwise be able to read their posts.
Sounds a lot like a pandora's box that we should avoid poking just for the sake of a few billionaires squabbling for a bunch of millions more or less.
This is the way I feel too. The worst is that I know he is disingenuous as heck and would do the exact same if he was in a position to do so. But the logic of the argument is what it is : right.this is me to tim sweeny right now
It also comes of as ironic, epic that wants capitalism to free without shackles, is begging the courts to force apple to do as epic wants.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #208
it would just be a temporary injunction for the duration of the lawsuit. it's a purposeful system put in place to stop a company from retaliating against someone (or some company) who is suing them. this is why part of the requirements is to show that your original case has merit and that you would be harmed by the actions leading to the injunction request, as well as the "public good" section. this so that the power from the plaintiff's end is not abused.
apple knows that epic will be monetarily harmed as well as suffer harm to their reputation which is why they terminated the developer accounts. it's basically apple using the anticompetitve power they were accused of having in the first place to force the company suing them to do it with one arm tied behind their back.
I've never understood the results of Microsoft getting punished for Internet Explorer in the 90s... Did it ever change?
I mean, Internet Explorer has always been preinstalled in all my different Windows installations, until it was replaced by Edge.
I mean, what changed? I never noticed a change.
I mean, Internet Explorer has always been preinstalled in all my different Windows installations, until it was replaced by Edge.
I mean, what changed? I never noticed a change.
Because Epic's long term goal is to take control of game distribution across multiple platforms by using anti-competitive tactics like money hatting. Yes, Apple's walled garden needs to become more pro-developer. But this may not result in a scummy company like Epic gaining too much control/power in the games industry. That's why I want Epic to fail and the EU to succeed against Apple.
There is a N version of Windows that comes without Internet Explorer and media center, but you basically require those components for most stuff so it's kinda meh.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #212
the microsoft case was also settled after an appeal. the original judgement was that the os wing and software wing of ms would be broken into two different companies.
like i posted above, sometimes the worst person you know makes a good point and in this case it is tim sweeney.
so you actually do want epic to win but not have epic be the one who claims the victory.
like i posted above, sometimes the worst person you know makes a good point and in this case it is tim sweeney.Grow big enough to be the villain, that's how unrestrained corporations make the heal turn. Always happens.
I'm 100% cool with cheering Epic on to give Apple a black eye and force open their walled garden. Also, we've gotta learn something from history and keep some knives sharp for Epic when this is all done.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #214
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
All of them are my enemies.
therefore all of them are my friends.
As covered in the Hoeg Law video, Apple's decision to terminate Epic's developers account is made because Epic violeted one of the most important terms in Apple's ToS: misleading the app certification team by hiding functionality that goes straight against Apple's rules.
The ToS litterally says that this leads to immediate termination of the developers account; if Apple really wanted to be jerks, they wouldn't have given Epic 14 days to correct their mistake.
No matter how much I hate Apple (they won't ever see a single cent from me), their actions are completely justified in this case.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #217
and yet they've never done this for any other similar tos violation from another app re: payment. odd that it only happens once they are being sued. probably a coincidence?
a terms of service doesn't actually have much to do with the law anyway so it's a bit much to use that as any justification of anything, especially considering the number of exceptions that have been granted to that terms of service in a seemingly haphazard way.
a terms of service doesn't actually have much to do with the law anyway so it's a bit much to use that as any justification of anything, especially considering the number of exceptions that have been granted to that terms of service in a seemingly haphazard way.
Genuine question (because I don't really know): Did any of those other cases enable the change (in this case the alternative payment) remotely after having completed the certification ?
Not at all. I want Apple to offer better terms for developers. I don't want them to be forced to allow other ecosystems within their ecosystem, nor do I want them to make in-app microtransactions completely free. In my opinion, the absolute majority of free mobile gaming with in-app purchases are a complete scam. If there's anything Apple is doing right, it's Apple Arcade.[UWSL]so you actually do want epic to win but not have epic be the one who claims the victory. [/UWSL]
OP
- Thread Starter
- #220
so you want better terms but no competition to lead to a reason for the terms to change?
no one is asking for iap to become free so that's not relevant. free mobile games being a scam don't have anything to do with this case either.
however subscription services for gamea being monopolized on a platform and not allowing any apps that compete with those services is good.
i'll admit i'm not sure exactly what you're asking for here but it definitely just seems like you don't like epic.
Agreed.
Not sure why the defense force surrounding apple, simply because "free mobile games are a scam"..... :/
Epic is litterally asking to allow external payment systems, in order to perform iap without paying Apple anything.
And no, I don't like Epic and I don't like Apple either. But what I definitely don't like is Epic's definition of "competition". My opinion in this matter is based on the latter.
I'm a poet now, yay!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #223
i am not sure either, not enough to state either way. the biggest cases of payment related violations or advertising other payment methods were caught in app review. it's certainly possible for apple to say it was a security issue because of the trickery used to bypass app review but i'm not sure if that's what they are saying.
and as far as apple losing a few bucks to iap fees, can't say i'm crying there. they had no issue with alternate/external payment systems until 2011 and they didn't seem to be on the edge of bankruptcy at that point. it's harder to get them to give up that grip now that they are a $2 trillion company though, no surprise there.
Wait tho: are you sure?
Apple gave an ultimatum and it's on Epic to comply or defy.
We don't really know if Apple sent the same notice to other devs and they fixed their breaches before the account termination.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #225
true, i shouldn't have spoke so definitively. however in the most recent public example (hey.com email) basecamp were dinged for offering an external payment process for a subscription and were just threatened with removal of the app within 14 days if it was not removed, not their account terminated.
funny enough in that specific case there were other apps from the same developer that offered external subscriptions and did not have any action taken against them, only the new app did that happened to also be a competing app with apple's own mail app. not implying a conspiracy here but it does show that enforcement of the tos is inconsistent if nothing else
funny enough in that specific case there were other apps from the same developer that offered external subscriptions and did not have any action taken against them, only the new app did that happened to also be a competing app with apple's own mail app. not implying a conspiracy here but it does show that enforcement of the tos is inconsistent if nothing else
Last edited:
Can we avoid the cheap jabs with terms like "defense force" and such? Not like it does much to add to the discussion.
Next time you can tag me
I can use the term "running a screen" or "shielding" if you'd like?
I'm with Alexandros on the IAP thing. The only reason I think Epic has a case there is on the basis they are not allowed to advertise out of Store, 0% purchases. Other than that, it comes down to them not being allowed to establish their own platform to be "side-loaded" (sic).
@Everyone
Would any of us accept Microsoft locking down windows the way Apple has locked down iOS. I'm talking beyond the store, I'm talking operating system level.
Why the pass? Try to think what the personal computing space would look like now if M$ acted like Apple and IoS.....
You want your app on the phone, NO CHOICE BUT Apple Store.
I agree with people saying that fees are reasonable if you are using apples store to sell and distribute.
Other payment stores need to be on the platform. Same goes for google. These are people's main computing devices going into the future and I'll be damned if I'm comfortable with Apple or Google setting the agenda for what were allowed to pay for on those devices.
Would any of us accept Microsoft locking down windows the way Apple has locked down iOS. I'm talking beyond the store, I'm talking operating system level.
Why the pass? Try to think what the personal computing space would look like now if M$ acted like Apple and IoS.....
You want your app on the phone, NO CHOICE BUT Apple Store.
I agree with people saying that fees are reasonable if you are using apples store to sell and distribute.
Other payment stores need to be on the platform. Same goes for google. These are people's main computing devices going into the future and I'll be damned if I'm comfortable with Apple or Google setting the agenda for what were allowed to pay for on those devices.
This might be a strawman but I think people buy Apple devices precisely because they find the walled garden attractive. I sure do, that I don’t have to fuck around with Android and its technical issues.People are buying $1200 phones to get the ‘Apple’ experience.
When you buy a PC, you’re free to install whatever OS you want. If Microsoft pulled that stuff they would obliterate the way computers are used now.
If they wanted to fuck around with their phone they would get any of the thousand options available.
If that makes sense.
My preference is clearly towards open ecosystems so I am absolutely in favor of Apple, Google and other megacorporations being investigated for anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices. I do recognize though that there is a case to be made for appliance-like devices and that other people prefer them.
Epic's lawsuit has some elements that appear to be reasonable. The basic question of "should one company rule a general-purpose platform with an iron fist?" is valid and I do believe that there is a need for checks and balances to ensure that Apple cannot abuse that position. The other thing that Epic is asking I find to be completely unreasonable, which is the ability to distribute Fortnite through the App Store and process payments directly without paying Apple anything. Essentially a free ride.
If someone were to ask me "what would you want the ruling to be?" I would honestly answer "I really don't care, let them fight". I don't like Apple and I don't like Epic. I want Apple to be put in check but I don't want Epic to have even more power. So, fuck them both, I'm not rooting for anyone. It's not like any one of us taking sides is going to affect the outcome so I'm going to grab my popcorn and let them duke it out.
Last edited:
I had one. For years.
Windows as an OS, as a main development platform, tool for business, education and what not, something these hand held computers may be one day.
This is me, I'm also discouraging any of my relatives or friends from purchasing any android device tbh, since then the only help I have to provide is the occasional password reset or phone reset since those things are literally idiotproof.
If they purchase any android stuff they're on their own.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #237
wouldn't the counter argument be to not install any secondary app stores and only use apple pay? the option for something like this already exists on mac. you can turn off the ability to install apps from any source other than the app store if you want. previous versions of mac os shipped with this on by default but i believe it defaults to off now after complaints.
As someone who has to shield my mother from her friend’s misguided advices, please don’t
no that won't help because then they pester you to remove that, the only way to protect people from dangerous options is to have those options removed permanently or not have them at all
I’m going to look like the biggest Apple shill but here I go.
the iPhone is the first device my mother is confortable with. She can talk to me, her friends and whatnot with it. Of course she could do this in any device. But this is the first one that she doesnt feel like she is one misclick away from destroying it.
Apple has recognized it and charges premium for it. You could argue that they charge way too much and I agree. But I think that there’s an audience for walled gardens, even if for the accessibility side.
the iPhone is the first device my mother is confortable with. She can talk to me, her friends and whatnot with it. Of course she could do this in any device. But this is the first one that she doesnt feel like she is one misclick away from destroying it.
Apple has recognized it and charges premium for it. You could argue that they charge way too much and I agree. But I think that there’s an audience for walled gardens, even if for the accessibility side.
OP
no, options are important, including the option of having a walled garden.
Last edited:
Nobody is giving them a pass, nor were people happy when UWP came alone.
iOS on Iphones and Windows on PCs are not comparable situations, and I do not think you are making a good point here.
iOS (for iphones) is running on devices that Apple developed, funded, build, sold and made an Operating System for. It is their thing and locked down since day one.
The only reason we are talking about iOS and its restrictions is because it became incredibly successful. Fair enough, but Microsoft is standing on completely different terrain with Windows. It's an OS written for independent hardware, that is exchangeable, freely available, not locked down, We all know what a PC is, so I'm gonna spare you the usual further descriptions and explanations why PC is an open platform. But the baseline between iphones and PCs is different. And therefore the "right" to lock the system down is also different.
Let me ask you a question: Would you be happy with Tim opening a stand in a supermarket you build and financed with your own money? You ran the adds, took the risks, acquired loyal costumers. And now somebody is opening a tent in your building, selling the same stuff for less and taking advantage of the hard work you did for decades? Nobody would be happy with that and that's one of the reasons why there is so much support for Apple. People understand and accept a walled garden, if it always was a walled garden.
Now would your supermarket turn into a chain, buying and destroying other supermarkets and turning into a monopoly. That's a problem and legal action would be needed. Your supermarket chain could end up being split. But somebody just entering your biggest supermarket with a tent under his arm, would be the most stupid and futile endeavor and people would not understand what the situation is about.
The problem here is that many people will feel like Apple has a right to run its own store on their own devices. Now if that's the case or not, will be decided by much more intelligent and law knowledgeable people than me.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #247
Microsoft Surface
external payment options were allowed and used on ios devices until 2011
So? One of many PC devices and I can install linux on it or download and buy software from any source I wish.
Wallmart is allowed to change the payment options in their stores as much as they want to. If they say MasterCard is no longer accepted, Mastercard is no longer accepted. Wouldn't allow you to sell grocerys from inside their store though.
What is the difference between Wallmart and Apple? Serious question, because I don't get it.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #249
its a device that microsoft "developed, funded, build, sold and made an Operating System for". that was your criteria for devices that should(?) be locked down.
agree to disagree. no interest in protecting monopolistic/duopolistic actions from companies because "its nice to have the option of a monopoly"
No. The operating system was build for the open platform that is PC and than used for a device made by Microsoft. For all I care Microsoft can lock down the store option on surface devices. Costumers just need to know about it before buying, there need to be open platform alternatives (other ultrabooks) and locking down after a costumer bought a surface decive should be impossible.
All that would happen with locked down surface laptops: They would sell even worse.