And this is Epics way of trying to force that very issue. It’s spelled out clearly in the lawsuit.
Both sides are right and wrong. Apple should be able to have whatever rules it wants on its store. And Epic should be able to sell whatever iOS software it wants to directly to the customer.
A bigger mystery is even why the Sharp X68000 was never released globally, as it was the best machine of that era.I am still baffled that a company like Apple with their shitty and overprized Macs survived while the much better Atari STs and Amigas went nowhere.
It was a very very expensive machine. Basically Arcade hardware as a computer.A bigger mystery is even why the Sharp X68000 was never released globally, as it was the best machine of that era.
Apple products consistently have the best build quality in their product classes, and both perform better and last longer than competitors. Commodore Amigas pushed home gaming into the most graphically amazing era of the time (Shadow Of The Beast single handedly sold computers), had the best arcade ports and were the pinnacle of gaming, and the Atari ST changed industries - like music production with C-Lab that eventually became Cubase, so .. neither of these machines ‘went nowhere’?I am still baffled that a company like Apple with their shitty and overprized Macs survived while the much better Atari STs and Amigas went nowhere.
Well, if Sharp would've tried to push their stuff globally, it might have seen success. It would've been cool to see NEC or Fujitsu try to get a global foothold as well. But I think all three companies saw IBM and probably thought "There's no point in opposing IBM". Apple was nearly killed and both Atari and Commodore just didn't have the financial reserves to withstand IBM and Microsofts push. Commodore was also horribly mismanaged during the Amiga era, if the interviews of Commodore engineers are to be believed.It was a very very expensive machine. Basically Arcade hardware as a computer.
The amount of people who would have just bought it for the games would have been small, and there would not have been much other software around to use on it, I guess?
yup you had to sideload it. they put it on the play store in April.Wasn't Fortnite orignally only available on Android via sideloading precisely because Timmy didn't want to give Google a piece? Since when was it officially on the Play Store?
If you bothered to educate yourself, you‘d know why it‘s 20% only:So the price of v-bucks or skins on Apple/google was 9.99
so saving 30% is 7.00
on epics direct payment it was 7.99
epic making more money than befor, not about consumers saving it’s about epic getting more money
If you bothered to educate yourself, you‘d know why it‘s 20% only:
Epic announced a permanent 20% price drop for „certain payment methods“. The $9.99 you see on Apple IAP is the default price, so Epic has always eaten up the 30% Apple takes on iOS because the Vbucks option you‘re talking about is $9.99 everywhere.
It‘s not about giving back the 30% fee because Epic has never made the user pay for it anyways, they‘ve simply eaten the fee.
What exactly did epic do in the first place? I missed it...
They have not. They just reduced their prices by 20% across the board. Any platform fee, like Apples 30%, was never passed onto the end user because it used to cost $9.99 even on their platform.So in fact epic have raised their prises then
I disagree with that. One of the good things in Apple Store is that it is not the same trash dump as Google Play store.Both sides are right and wrong. Apple should be able to have whatever rules it wants on its store. And Epic should be able to sell whatever iOS software it wants to directly to the customer.
They have not. They just reduced their prices by 20% across the board. Any platform fee, like Apples 30%, was never passed onto the end user because it used to cost $9.99 even on their platform.
Welp...Epic brought this on themselves
Yeah, great software in and out. Entire million.I disagree with that. One of the good things in Apple Store is that it is not the same trash dump as Google Play store.
You contradict yourself.Both sides are right and wrong. Apple should be able to have whatever rules it wants on its store. And Epic should be able to sell whatever iOS software it wants to directly to the customer.
Imagine Microsoft banning someone from Windows.
This is what just happened.
And it is one of the biggest corporate assholes on the planet, with the most outrageous business practices, from that 30% that is not refunded, if customer gets money back, to that "brilliant" idea of having a cut of the subscription fee (innovated by Jobs himself, no less).
It's depressing to read shit like this on a gaming forum.
#youareholdingitwrong
And you suck, frankly.
Yeah, great software in and out. Entire million.
Don't forget to thank Apple for banning Microsoft's and Google's game streaming apps.
How many times this dumbfuck argument would be repeated?accept the terms and conditions
No, this is not what happened.Imagine Microsoft banning someone from Windows.
This is what just happened.
How many times this dumbfuck argument would be repeated?
The argument at hand is that Apple's T&C suck and are unacceptable.
"But but if someone is strongarmed into signing it" is not an answer to that.
No, it’s more like someone wearing a mask to enter a grocery store, and agreeing to wear the mask because that’s the rule to enter the store, then they pull the mask off, are told they have to leave, so they start screaming at other Karen warriors that their rights are being taken away.How many times this dumbfuck argument would be repeated?
The argument at hand is that Apple's T&C suck and are unacceptable.
"But but if someone is strongarmed into signing it" is not an answer to that.
End of the day Epic had a choice in the beginning on if they accept the terms and conditions and they did. They have now broke those terms and conditions and with that comes being booted off the store.
I take it you make a point to read and highlight with an assortment of colored pens the EULA's and ToS of every app you've installed on any device you've owned.
Especially all the stuff about disallowing you doing things enshrined in law and ensuring you have no recourse against the platform holder, but they retain the right to sue you into the middle of the next century so they wish.
I bet... I bet you even read the ToS of this very forum you're posting in.
Yes. Yes, of course you fucking didn't.
Today I learned that some people here think that Epic, a company worth $17.8 Billion, and who make $1.8 Billion a year with Fortnight, treat their most serious and lucrative distribution contracts the way we treat OS updates.I take it you make a point to read and highlight with an assortment of colored pens the EULA's and ToS of every app you've installed on any device you've owned
i am not a multimillion dollar company, they will have had lawyers do that for them?
Breach of contact is breach of contact no matter what. Do i think i 30% cut is to much yeah i do but i cant side with epic one bit on this because they knew what they were getting into. by paying the 30% your gaining access to millions upon millions of customers and they were happy to do it till they had a mega hit on their hands
So are you telling me it is right for Epic to break the terms and conditions of 2 store fronts and stays on b store fronts?
Do all of you defend Apple Music over Spotify too?
Today I learned that some people here think that Epic, a company worth $17.8 Billion, and who make $1.8 Billion a year with Fortnight, treat their most serious and lucrative distribution contracts the way we treat OS updates.
Fucking incredible.
Well, you answered your own question - and you're right, it's called Due Diligence, something that would've been legally required for contracts for both parties.
It is clear here that people don't understand what the cases filed by Epic is actually about, nor know anything about antitrust law.
Now I am not saying epic have a valid case here (my opinion is they do, but that is an opinion not fact) or even have a chance of winning (I don't think they do - but again that is opinion not fact), but the people who are saying that "Epic signed a contract and so they have no case" are totally missing the point. In antitrust law, contracts can be illegal if one of the companies are leveraging their dominant position in a market to force unfair terms in contract. It just isn't as simple as what some people seem to think!
Doubt they will do it with Sony as they have just ploughed 250 mill into epic but it could be a possibility.I dont like Apple one bit but if Epic gets away with it here then they will try it on PSN and XBL next
Of course they would, if they hate the royalties on one platform then they obviously have a similar view of it on all of themDoubt they will do it with Sony as they have just ploughed 250 mill into epic but it could be a possibility.
I dont like Apple one bit but if Epic gets away with it here then they will try it on PSN and XBL next
I doubt it's that simple. It's not like they didn't know they were breaching the contract in doing so - they even had the legal papers and FreeFortnite movie ready beforehand.I still disagree with the chosen approach.
They could have went to court against the closed system aspect of the whole iOS Ecosystem WHILE also still being compliant to their ToS.
Breaching ToS and then trying to spin around the flak from Apple as them being Anti-Consumer was IMHO the wrong approach.
Epic had a chance to have the support from users etc. but by breaching ToS and then being salty about Apples retaliation, they robbed them self of a lot of sympathy they could have had and now face harsh lash back and criticism for said practice.
It's a Lose-Lose situation. Epic will lose in court because they did breach ToS and are in no position to complain about it and thus other devs lose out on iOS becoming more open as a ecosystem because this whole dispute was started the wrong way. Sadly.
It is clear here that people don't understand what the cases filed by Epic is actually about, nor know anything about antitrust law.
Now I am not saying epic have a valid case here (my opinion is they do, but that is an opinion not fact) or even have a chance of winning (I don't think they do - but again that is opinion not fact), but the people who are saying that "Epic signed a contract and so they have no case" are totally missing the point. In antitrust law, contracts can be illegal if one of the companies are leveraging their dominant position in a market to force unfair terms in contract. It just isn't as simple as what some people seem to think!
This is exactly what happened, a company was banned from PC OS.No, this is not what happened.
Imagine someone making a Pro Standard Oil argument like that "yeah, conditions are so fucking bad legislation is about to hit us, but couldn't they have negotiated kinda deal with us, maybe we'd let them have a penny off".Imagine if a major company that employs hundreds, including lawyers, flippantly dismissed the TOS for a storefront (instead of working out a deal behind the scenes) and then fled to social media to whip up the mob with sympathy-pouts.
Responding to a "that's the rule argument doesn't fly against 'that rule is not acceptable'" with "that's the rule".that’s the rule
There are things that can be put in contracts (of which TOS is the lesser form) and there are things which could not.it’s literally a contract
No, they are not the same, google is not even remotely as stinky as Apple.So google terms and conditions are the same, they got kicked off there to.
Stop being obtuse, that's why it's called a hypothetical. How about you answer it? Especially as a Software Engineer, you think it would be fine if Windows started banning programs they weren't fine with? and distributing them via Windows Store only? How about we take away your precious Chrome or Firefox? And all the other 3rd party programms that Windows might have a program for?That's impossible because it's under the GNU Project and tied too close to the GNU OS, hence the name GNU/Linux.
He could do it, but he would be the only one using it, because everyone else would be in the previous release (which, by definition would be still free) and making a new OS, "Linuxy".
I don't think anyone here should know anything about computing to make an opinion on this matter.
The matter is that Epic broke a mutual agreement with Apple, not that a 30% cut it's too much or about the "freedom of platforms".
There's free software and private software (or whatever you want to call it). Every company has the right to do whatever they want with the software they build (and comply with the license their software builds upon).
If you want to have an alternative store, jailbreak your iPhone or install something like AltStore and live with the consequences.
If you don't like that business model, Android it's still available.
Could you stop saying that Software Engineers applaud what Epic's doing because I'm a Software Engineer and I disagree with Epic's actions, they lack professionalism.
Talk by yourself, not on behalf of others.
Have a nice day.
Low detail and high emotion, like I said. Thank you for providing yet another example of my point.This is exactly what happened, a company was banned from PC OS.
Imagine someone making a Pro Standard Oil argument like that "yeah, conditions are so fucking bad legislation is about to hit us, but couldn't they have negotiated kinda deal with us, maybe we'd let them have a penny off".
Surely, company that just banned game streaming from its platform (Microsoft, Stadia) who can tell The Leather Man (mcap of 250 billion) to go to a bathroom have solo kamasutra, would "maybe do something".
There was a "homo soveticus" concept in USSR. When people were to dumb to see obvious things about power and misuse of it, it was written off as soviet legacy. Western people, we were told, feel the nuance.
No, they are fucking not. I'm disgusted with comments in this thread.
Responding to a "that's the rule argument doesn't fly against 'that rule is not acceptable'" with "that's the rule".
Very bright.
There are things that can be put in contracts (of which TOS is the lesser form) and there are things which could not.
If Microsoft would announce that all software for Windows (they've created it, remember) needs their blessing to exist, oh and could only be sold from Windows Store, oh and they'd get 30% cut off all sales, oh AND IF REFUND IS ISSUED, THOSE 30% ARE NOT RETURNED TO THE DEVELOPER (no, I'm not making things up, Apple is that stinky), yeah, surely, the world would just shrug it off as "but it's their windowz"....
No, they do not. Not due to them publishing a TOS-breaking update anyways.I literally dislike Apple cause I like tech, but I think they are right this time.
Maybe the retaliation is a little bit exaggerated, but they have any right to do so after Epic violated their terms.
Indeed, of all the "buh mah tirms and condishas" yours was exceptional: you've added "like I said.
I remember when my former employer sued apple for a flagrant patent infringement (my employer was clearly in the right). It was a bloodbath and they got away without paying a penny. Curious on how is this going to play out for Epic.