You as well? They accused me of deliberately ignoring one of their posts, yet going all the way back thru my history I found no post from them to me that needed a reply.
Feels like trolling to me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Has 'Lost Sight of the Tech Industry's Founding Principles,' Says Epic Games CEO
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Feels like trolling to me.
Everyone here can answer the question. It's just a really incredibly bad set of questions so nobody should.
"A manufacturer’s own products do not themselves comprise a relevant market."
"A company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural monopoly it holds over its own products."
These are direct quotes from case law… the precedent has been set and upheld by:
-Parsons v Ford 1982.
-Spectrofuge v Beckman Instruments 1978.
-TV Communications Network v Turner Network 1992.
-Belfore v New York Times Co 1986.
-Carlock v Pillsbury Co. 1989.
-Elliott v United Center 1996.
Among others.
Can't have a monopoly within its own product... check.
Absent proof the product has no substitutes... there's really no question if it has substitutes. To keep it simple: it does.
What’s “comical” is your accusation that I “deliberately ignored” one of your posts, yet despite repeated requests to show me the post in question, you ghost me.
For someone demanding of responses you sure hate to provide them yourself...
You must be new here! Let me be the first to welcome you to MacRumors!
(I say this in the same spirit in which your own post was made, since I know you’ve been here for years.
)The Founders had a definite vision when they made tech. In their vision, Epic was a highly respected industry leader and were "Really good guys". Not only that, Apple was evil. I swear to God!.
I’m quite happy to grant that the “founding principles” you describe of 1980s personal computing were quite different to those of today’s walled iOS garden.
But Apple didn’t just lose sight of those “founding principles”. On the contrary, Apple consciously rejected them and built a platform with different “founding principles” when they introduced the iPhone in 2007 and a year later when they introduced the App Store.
I’d say their new platform has done very well, both for Apple and for their third-party developers (including Epic).
There is a viable and thriving alternative to iOS that allows developers to distribute software however they choose, with no editorial or gatekeeping functions. It’s called “Android” (you may have heard of it), it’s developed by Google, and I believe it has competing third-party app stores, just like macOS and Windows.
Epic are suing Google too over their Google Play store, not just Apple. Is that because Epic are fighting for change to return Android to the tech industry’s founding principles? Or is it because their own attempt to distribute Fortnite outside the Google Play store never gained any traction?
Last edited:
Macrumors will take a 30% cut of any amount wagered
Epic had me in the beginning, but their hyperbolic nonsense since has lost me. I'm with Apple.
[automerge]1599796379[/automerge]
Apple made Sweeney rich. Filthy rich as in billionaire rich.
[automerge]1599796379[/automerge]
This is not a distinction recognized by law. Apple has broken no laws. There is healthy competition between platforms. Nobody forces consumers to buy an iPhone, indeed Android phones have much higher market share globally. One could argue Android is more of a monopoly than Apple.
Apple made Sweeney rich. Filthy rich as in billionaire rich.
I don't understand how they can complain. They knew the rules when they started distributing their games on the App Store. It's not like Apple changed the rules, or started taking more of a share.
Really, it's about Epic wanting a larger slice of the pie and playing the martyr to get it.
Really, it's about Epic wanting a larger slice of the pie and playing the martyr to get it.
Many have the right, but not the ability to remain silent.
As a side note, in the US, even if you are Mirandized the law can continue ti=o question you in hopes you talkk; up intil you ask for your lawyer. That is why the first words out of your mouth should be along the lines of "I'd want to have my lawyer present for any questioning..."
You’re like the grumbling laborers in this parable, to whom the landowner replied:
Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?
Every developer on the App Store agreed with Apple for the usual 70/30 split. In return for their commission, Apple let developers like Epic sell software in Apple’s market and make hundreds of millions of dollars. The money Apple make from their commission becomes Apple’s own. Are Apple not allowed to do what they choose with what belongs to them?
Apple choose to be generous and spend their own money hosting and serving downloads for those developers who themselves choose to be generous in spending their own time (which has real value) making software available for free.
It’s entirely possible, of course, that Apple are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they believe that having high-quality freeware on the App Store adds value to their platform.
Whatever Apple’s motives, commercial developers have no right to object to Apple’s generosity to freeware developers. You have no right to object to Apple’s generosity. The only people who would have any right to object to Apple’s generosity are their shareholders, but given how profitable Apple have become, why would they?
Last edited:
I suspect that you and everyone like you trying to make this point has missed that fact that Epic is simultaneously suing both Apple and Google using the same two primary legal arguments in both cases:
- Monopoly control over the distribution of software to phones.
- Monopoly control over payment systems within their respective stores.
In fact, Epic pulled Fortnite out of the Play Store, put it in their own store, and found out it sucked. So they went right back into the Play Store. This proves a couple of things:
- These twin lawsuits clearly aren't about competing stores, as you make it out to be, because Epic has one in Google's case and yet Epic is suing them anyway.
- By going back to the Play Store, Epic themselves proved that the main store's 30% cost is worth the value that it brings to them. Paying 30% to be on the main store is worth it even though they pay 0% on their own store.
Last edited:
Epic Games, as a corporation, should charge what the market will bear for its products. In their case, the market is (largely) parents spending on behalf of their kids.
I believe this is driven by Tencent, as any break in pricing will benefit them massively. Not only through Epic but the also own clash of clans and similar titles that rinse users of their cash.
I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re not saying it quite right.
You say “A contract can be enforceable without courts.” But the court is the enforcement mechanism, if you are trying to compel the breaching party to perform against their will.
In your non-compete example, the non-breaching party (the original employer) can certainly fire the employee. In fact, the contract both parties signed would have set out that consequence: failure to abide by the terms of this agreement may result in the employee’s immediate termination.
But what if the contract specified this: if employee violates, company may immediately terminate the employee and employee must repay the $10,000 relocation assistance company earlier provided.
Yes, the employee may very well owe the company the $10k, but what if employee refuses to pay? Company will have to file suit in court in order to compel the employee to repay the $10k, i.e. to enforce the contract.
But what you said is true, the employer would not need any court involvement to act in accordance with the contract terms and immediately fire the employee. Just as all the other (legal) mutually agreed upon terms are valid without the court having to agree.
I hope that makes sense!
Last edited:
When my former company sold shrink wrapped software in retail stores—anyone in the Valley remember Egghead Software on El Camino near Remington in Sunnyvale? Businessland? 🤣—we were lucky to get 50% of the retail price when we sold to our wholesale distributor.Speaking of Walmart:
Gross Profit Margin For Walmart Inc. (WMT)
Walmart's latest twelve months gross profit margin is 25.0%... View Walmart Inc.'s Gross Profit Margin trends, charts, and more.finbox.com
Walmart's gross profit margin is right around 25%. Considering that they incur costs to stock their shelves, empty their shelves occasionally, check on produce, ship stuff, etc., they are surely selling their wares at a cost more than 30% higher than what they pay their suppliers. So obviously, Apple's 30%, reduced to 15% for recurring business, is totally unreasonable </sarc>. Apple does incur expenses to earn that 15 or 30%, so that is not gross profit margin.
I feel no sympathy for Epic.
Last edited:
10% is the legitimate cost of payment processing. If you buy in bulk, that goes down to around 4%.
Sorry but this isn‘t true. It may be true in theory but not in reality. First of all the manufacturer can decide between producing Google phones including Google PlayServices or they can produce „free“ devices. They are not allowed to produce both.
Next, the manufacturers are not allowed to install different AppStores (although Huawei and Samsung made a deal to do so). For push notifications you need PlayServices, and last but not least for a normal user sideloading is a cumbersome process.
So even when you talk about Android - if you want to be in the market you have to be in the only market available, which happens to be Googles PlayStore.
And yes, it is possible to bypass Googles PlayStore but nearly no one is using it. Epic started without PlayStore on Google and didn‘t succeed. That’s how it is. And if you are distributing you app using Googles PlayStore you are bound to Googles 30%.
Old, but still very true:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...ntrolling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
This whole thread has people effectively implying that if Epic is allowed to have their own store, that's the complete death of Apple's App Store. That's not the case.
If you prefer Apple's Store, don't install Epic's. No-one is forcing you to.
Epic's product is a cross-platform game store, no different to Steam. They're not exploiting anything. By that argument Firefox, and Chrome exploit the platform and customer base that Microsoft built.
Let's not pretend that Apple isn't being handsomely compensated for building a platform, they sell hardware and make a profit on it.
Is that different from the situation on macOS and Windows, to which dguisinger was contrasting iOS? macOS comes with the Mac App Store and Windows comes with the Microsoft Store, but neither come with third-party stores already installed. If you want the Epic Games Store on your Mac, you have to go to Epic’s web site and download it.
(I certainly did not mean to imply that I think Android’s third-party app stores are viable and thriving, only Android itself.)
My point was simply that while dguisinger seemed to be saying that Epic were fighting for iOS to be like macOS and Windows in that respect, Android already is, and yet Epic are still suing Google over the Google Play store.
So it seems the change Epic are really fighting for is not to make iOS more like macOS and Windows and Android, but to be able sell in-app purchases and distribute the Epic Games Store through the iOS App Store and Google Play store without paying any commissions.
(In the longer term, the change Tim Sweeney himself has said he would like to see is getting third-party stores like the Epic Games Store on the consoles — doubtless also without paying commissions — and I suspect that his lawsuit is the thin edge of a wedge meant to crack open the console vendors, since they account for the vast bulk of Epic’s revenues. Sweeney’s losing only a small percentage of his revenue by being kicked out of the iOS App Store and Google Play store, and while the loss is many millions of dollars, it’s intellegible if he’s eyeing a much larger payoff later.)
Last edited:
Not exactly. To install Windows Software you simply click on a link and it installs. For macOS it is nearly the same, download dmg and start - but today you‘ll have to right click and start the application. For Android you must enable installation from other sources - this frightens people. And then you have to download and install an apk (my mother would be like - I have to install what???)
Google does everything to keep people from installing from external sources. And it works. That is why Epic sues Google because of “Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage.”
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/...awsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal
Different case and more difficult to argue, that is why Google tries to avoid being bundled with Apple
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...equests-court-not-connect-it-to-apple-vs-epic
Forgetting the point that console makes sell their hardware at a loss and earn revenue through software sales, does apple do that? Kinda hard to compare two completely different markets