Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]

[0924487]

A court is the only authority in the United States which can determine if a company has monopoly power and in addition if such monopoly is illegal.

Regulators have no authority to so.

He who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find his stick.

You can have “trumped up charges” first, then create new legislations or new interpretations of existing legislations to legitimize those charges.

Just like Huawei. If there’s a will, there will be a way.

 

[0924487]

This is a dispute between two megacorps. It just so happens that one is a lot bigger than the other.
That "unreasonable contract" has earned Epic millions and millions. If it weren't for that platform, there may not have been other similar ones for them to profit from either.

Epic wants Apple's cut back. Apple wants a cut for the substantial amount of work it does to provide Epic with a very lucrative platform. Any argument should be over the numbers and thats between those two. If it weren't viable, Epic probably wouldn't be as big as they are, so they really don't have much of an argument.

Always cheer for the little guys.

Art of War, and stuff...

 

[Abazigal]

We should also remember that Epic had no problem standing on stage at the iPad introduction in 2010 to announce their first iPad game.

And this was after they signed a contract with Apple and agreed to Apple's 30% cut.

But less than a decade later... Epic filed a lawsuit against that same company... complaining about that same cut.

I think what happened during that time is that Epic basically became big enough that they no longer felt the app store benefited them enough to warrant that 30% cut.

Right at the start, the App Store, together with the ton of free promotion that Apple gave their games like infinity blade, was a huge boon to Epic, even after the 30% cut. And so they accepted this as a cost of business.

Today, Epic is a household name, everybody knows about Fortnite and you don't really need Apple to advertise the app for you any more. And so Epic wants out of the original contract, because it's no longer to their advantage. And they are not afraid to burn bridges because they believe Apple has nothing left of value to offer them.

I imagine it's more or less the same story with every other company suing Apple today. Take Spotify for instance. They would never had gotten as many subscribers as they have today if they had required users to navigate to an external website to create an account, and so the ability to register directly within the app itself was invaluable for customer acquisition, especially when you were a new, unproven concept.

It does make me wonder as more apps embrace the subscription model. Does Apple deserve to continue taking 15% of subscription revenue in perpetuity for the role they have played in making it so seamless for me to subscribe to fantastical and Tweetbot? But I suppose that's another debate for another day.

 

[quarkysg]

4) If the developer is giving the app away for free and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge the developer a flat fee up front for the download of the initial app.

Don't forget about updates to the apps.

 

[Aydo2000]

Nah, communism does not mean that, it means no competition.

A perfectly competitive Economy would have all markets similar to the paper clip making. It also means that wealth does not accumulate significantly across generations. It also means social mobility. People on top must try very hard to stay at the top, and they are very easily replaced. It also means “factors of production” cannot “scale” in private hands. Once you are of a certain size, you should be broken down into two companies. So, the wealth and power are divided and not concentrated. It also means the two companies now can compete with each other instead of operating as a giant company.

etc.

I am a former refugee who escaped such regime. Do you really think you can teach me what communism is? I lived through that. Thread carefully.

 

[Aydo2000]

He who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find his stick.

You can have “trumped up charges” first, then create new legislations or new interpretations of existing legislations to legitimize those charges.

Just like Huawei. If there’s a will, there will be a way.

Tell us how those legislatons ended up once it goes to court. Go ahead. Look back in the last decade and give us examples.

FYI, Huawei is a state controlled Chinese corporation. Do you think it’s a good example to give for the American legislations?

 

[Aydo2000]

I think what happened during that time is that Epic basically became big enough that they no longer felt the app store benefited them enough to warrant that 30% cut.

Right at the start, the App Store, together with the ton of free promotion that Apple gave their games like infinity blade, was a huge boon to Epic, even after the 30% cut. And so they accepted this as a cost of business.

Today, Epic is a household name, everybody knows about Fortnite and you don't really need Apple to advertise the app for you any more. And so Epic wants out of the original contract, because it's no longer to their advantage. And they are not afraid to burn bridges because they believe Apple has nothing left of value to offer them.

I imagine it's more or less the same story with every other company suing Apple today. Take Spotify for instance. They would never had gotten as many subscribers as they have today if they had required users to navigate to an external website to create an account, and so the ability to register directly within the app itself was invaluable for customer acquisition, especially when you were a new, unproven concept.

It does make me wonder as more apps embrace the subscription model. Does Apple deserve to continue taking 15% of subscription revenue in perpetuity for the role they have played in making it so seamless for me to subscribe to fantastical and Tweetbot? But I suppose that's another debate for another day.

Exactly right. Add Netflix to the list which is another company that was fine with the App Store cut until they felt like they didn’t need Apple anymore.

And the answer to your question is, yes, Apple does deserve to keep taking 15% off of subscription services because Apple needs to keep dedicating resources to host and support Netflix’s app. App Store is a continues business. It’s not a single time transaction type of business. App Store’s first contribution is adding subscribers but the second function is to sustain it. That costs less than building up the initial user base but it still costs money to retain that user base. That’s why the cut rate goes from 30% to 15%.

 

[0924487]

Tell us how those legislatons ended up once it goes to court. Go ahead. Look back in the last decade and give us examples.

FYI, Huawei is a state controlled Chinese corporation. Do you think it’s a good example to give for the American legislations?

Corporations are corporations, if a president is set it can go down on anyone. Also, there was a French company that got the same treatment and technology was robbed by the US interest groups. I forgot the name. Alston or something.

The court would just say, well, exactly, guilty. Since you custom made the law to fit the prosecutions you wish to impose, what do you expect?

 

[0924487]

Exactly right. Add Netflix to the list which is another company that was fine with the App Store cut until they felt like they didn’t need Apple anymore.

And the answer to your question is, yes, Apple does deserve to keep taking 15% off of subscription services because Apple needs to keep dedicating resources to host and support Netflix’s app. App Store is a continues business. It’s not a single time transaction type of business. App Store’s first contribution is adding subscribers but the second function is to sustain it. That costs less than building up the initial user base but it still costs money to retain that user base. That’s why the cut rate goes from 30% to 15%.

Apple doesn’t have to do that, they can quit the market and, before you know it, Epple will take its place. Individual companies are disposable in a perfectly competitive market.

 

[0924487]

I am a former refugee who escaped such regime. Do you really think you can teach me what communism is? I lived through that. Thread carefully.

Yes, that explained your clouded judgement.

Which one? The Gulag Archipelago? Nazi Germany? The Viets? Maoist China? North Korea?

We never had a real full communism state yet, were did you run away from?

True Marxist communism is a very big step above Socialism, which hasn’t even been achieved yet.

All previous cases were just failed imitations by some incompetent dictatorships hijacking the doctrine.

I will give you an example of communism. In modern US schools, we tend to get teachers that are all for giving everyone a metal. Everyone is number one.

 

[Aydo2000]

Corporations are corporations, if a president is set it can go down on anyone. Also, there was a French company that got the same treatment and technology was robbed by the US interest groups. I forgot the name. Alston or something.

The court would just say, well, exactly, guilty. Since you custom made the law to fit the prosecutions you wish to impose, what do you expect?

So your answer is….no answer.

We are talking about US legislations. Not Chinese or French ones. Or German.

 

[Aydo2000]

Yes, that explained your clouded judgement.

Which one? The Gulag Archipelago? Nazi Germany? The Viets? Maoist China? North Korea?

We never had a real full communism state yet, were did you run away from?

True Marxist communism is a very big step above Socialism, which hasn’t even been achieved yet.

All previous cases were just failed imitations by some incompetent dictatorships hijacking the doctrine.

I will give you an example of communism. In modern US schools, we tend to get teachers that are all for giving everyone a metal. Everyone is number one.

Try being issued a new birth certificate because you are not allowed to have your born in name if you belong to a minority group. Same thing was done to dead people too. Yep, you heard that right.

Or if you wanted to buy a car, you would have to put your name in a lottery and wait 2 years to know the results. Oh, you can’t choose the color either. Whatever the lottery assigns is what you get. Pink was one of the options.

Need more examples? I got life full of it. Still think Marxism was never truly achieved?

I am talking about an entire governmental regime where everything is dead equal including your name. Certainly not comparable to a cultural school system that you think was a good example for whatever reason. Not every school did that. I actually think you are joking because you can’t possibly be serious with that example.

I ran away from one of the Eastern European countries in the 80s. You seem to think you know your stuff. Wanna take a guess? Because I have a feeling your next thing would be to tell me how I lived.

 

[Aydo2000]

Apple doesn’t have to do that, they can quit the market and, before you know it, Epple will take its place. Individual companies are disposable in a perfectly competitive market.

If you haven’t noticed, competition inherently favors the successful contenders. Last time I checked, Apple was quite successful. It’s hypothetical disappearance would be highly related to many years of accumulated failures. Your unrealistic scenarios are fun to read though.

If you take Apple out today, whatever replaces it would be a copycat version of it. Apple is worldwide contributor to many economies around the world. That is something you can’t replicate with a replacement company. Epple can never achieve what Apple achieved unless Epple was the sole reason for Apple’s disappearance. Quitting for no reason would never produce the same results.

 

[0924487]

So your answer is….no answer.

We are talking about US legislations. Not Chinese or French ones. Or German.

A French company "looted" by the US government and its associated interest groups. I believe GE was the one talking the IPs.

 

[Aydo2000]

A French company "looted" by the US government and its associated interest groups. I believe GE was the one talking the IPs.

Try a US corporation that was accused of certain practices and targeted by US legislators who has successfully persuaded US courts to rule in their favor. Foreign companies or companies with foreign affiliations don’t apply for obvious reasons. US government will always have an interest to go after a foreign entity.

Try harder. Without deflecting this time.Plenty of instances when legislatures went after big tech for one reason or the other. Pick one!

 

[0924487]

If you haven’t noticed, competition inherently favors the successful contenders. Last time I checked, Apple was quite successful. It’s hypothetical disappearance would be highly related to many years of accumulated failures. Your unrealistic scenarios are fun to read though.

If you take Apple out today, whatever replaces it would be a copycat version of it. Apple is worldwide contributor to many economies around the world. That is something you can’t replicate with a replacement company. Epple can never achieve what Apple achieved unless Epple was the sole reason for Apple’s disappearance. Quitting for no reason would never produce the same results.

You can make Apple not "successful" just enough so that the competition can take on them by twisting regulations, subsidies, taxes, and transfer payments.

You can even use the regulatory burden to force Apple to capitulate or reach a settlement on something. E.g., looking into Apple for tax evasion and money laundering through intricate shell companies, etc. You just need to find one issue after the other, they don't have to stand in court. They just need to thrash Apple.

It's like tickling someone while they are juggling. They don't die, but they become a lot less competitive jugglers. Other objectively weaker jugglers would have a chance to win.

 

[Aydo2000]

You can make Apple not "successful" just enough so that the competition can take on them by twisting regulations, subsidies, taxes, and transfer payments.

You can even use the regulatory burden to force Apple to capitulate or reach a settlement on something. E.g., looking into Apple for tax evasion and money laundering through intricate shell companies, etc. You just need to find one issue after the other, they don't have to stand in court. They just need to thrash Apple.

It's like tickling someone while they are juggling. They don't die, but they become a lot less competitive jugglers. Other objectively weaker jugglers would have a chance to win.

I don’t do conspiracies. I prefer engaging with people who live in reality and not some parallel world.

 

[0924487]

Try a US corporation that was accused of certain practices and targeted by US legislators who has successfully persuaded US courts to rule in their favor. Foreign companies or companies with foreign affiliations don’t apply for obvious reasons. US government will always have an interest to go after a foreign entity.

Try harder. Without deflecting this time.Plenty of instances when legislatures went after big tech for one reason or the other. Pick one!

Microsoft vs. all others.

Bill said if not for the antitrust lawsuits draining all his brainpower and time, he would have led Windows Mobile to be competitive, if not leading. He even said, he could have beaten Apple and Google to the market.

Also, we have reached a turning point in history, where the big tech is getting too big. It's no longer possible for a Ph.D. student to start a bookshop to compete with Amazon, or a software company to compete with MS/Google, or a phone company to compete with Apple. It maybe is time to break those companies, so that the odds are less certain.

The political landscape in the US is changing, people today are a lot more willing to embrace Socialism under the brand of "Democratic Socialism", which is exactly the same thing. Socialism, by itself, doesn't determine how the government is elected or appointed or inherited. So, the term "Democratic" is just for PR.


P.S. As always, I may not agree with everything I'm saying. This is for the purpose of the debate, and to test if an argument is valid and bulletproof. Think of this as a thought experiment.

 

[0924487]

I don’t do conspiracies. I prefer engaging with people who live in reality and not some parallel world.

That's not conspiracies. You lived in a communist nation as you said. You must know what I meant and how it works.

For example, I don't care if you are guilty of anything, but I want you gone, so I want you to be guilty. So, I make a claim, and another, and another. That emboils you in a permanent state of being prosecuted. Eventually, you get disconnected from society, and you living or dead no longer matters. One day, you can take your own life or have a convenient accident.

Why would I want that? Can be anything. Maybe I just want your political rivals to have a chance to get elected or appointed. Maybe I want your wife. Maybe I want your IPs. Maybe you know too much. etc. Endless possibilities.

 

[Aydo2000]

Microsoft vs. all others.

Bill said if not for the antitrust lawsuits draining all his brainpower and time, he would have led Windows Mobile to be competitive, if not leading. He even said, he could have beaten Apple and Google to the market.

Also, we have reached a turning point in history, where the big tech is getting too big. It's no longer possible for a Ph.D. student to start a bookshop to compete with Amazon, or a software company to compete with MS/Google, or a phone company to compete with Apple. It may be is time to break those companies, so that the odds are less certain.

The political landscape in the US is changing, people today are a lot more willing to embrace Socialism under the brand of "Democratic Socialism", which is exactly the same thing. Socialism, by itself, doesn't determine how the government is elected or appointed or inherited. So, the term "Democratic" is just for PR.


P.S. As always, I may not agree with everything I'm saying. This is for the purpose of the debate, and to test if an argument is valid and bulletproof. Think of this as a thought experiment.

So once again, your answer is…no answer.

This isn’t about disagreements over opinion. This is strictly about giving us real life examples of things you claim to exist. Unfortunately for you, you can’t quite back up your claims.

Once again: Try a US corporation that was accused of certain practices and targeted by US legislators who has successfully persuaded US courts to rule in their favor.

Let me give you a real life example:

United States vs.Microsoft.

United States of government accused Microsoft of anticompetitive behavior and holding monopoly over browser market. This happped in 2001. That’s 20 years ago!!!!

Microsoft used to hold 95% of the PC and browser market and it was blocking Netscape from being installed on its computers. Government sued and courts agreed. This is one the very good examples of what a true monopoly and anticompetitive behavior was.

Since then government brought so many claims like this on big tech but it was only one other time that ever managed to succeed.

Conclusion: Courts don’t care about political agenda or don’t get fooled by altered legislations to fit into courts definitions.

 

[0924487]

don’t get fooled by altered legislations to fit into courts definitions.

Courts can't think about the law, they can only interpret the law, which only the regulators can draft.

 

[Aydo2000]

That's not conspiracies. You lived in a communist nation as you said. You must know what I meant and how it works.

For example, I don't care if you are guilty of anything, but I want you gone, so I want you to be guilty. So, I make a claim, and another, and another. That emboils you in a permanent state of being prosecuted. Eventually, you get disconnected from society, and you living or dead no longer matters. One day, you can take your own life or have a convenient accident.

Why would I want that? Can be anything. Maybe I just want your political rivals to have a chance to get elected or appointed. Maybe I want your wife. Maybe I want your IPs. Maybe you know too much. etc. Endless possibilities.

Your conspiracies are your ridiculous claims of Apple’s tax evasions and money laundering. You have got to stop with such nonsense.

 

[Aydo2000]

Courts can't think about the law, they can only interpret the law, which only the regulators can draft.

Which needs to both pass the House and the Senate. If it was so easy to pass new legislations, everyday there would be something new. Let’s change the constitution too then while we are at it.

 

[0924487]

Once again: Try a US corporation that was accused of certain practices and targeted by US legislators who has successfully persuaded US courts to rule in their favor.

I'm not really interested in giving out the label of monopoly.

The whole point of my comments in the last two days was to tell you that you don't need to find a cause, e.g., being a monopoly, to ask for changes. You can have regulations on things, just because.

For example, you don't need to prove that large magazines are dangerous to society, you can just de facto ban it just because through arbitrary legislations, just like what they did with suppressors.

 

[0924487]

Your conspiracies are your ridiculous claims of Apple’s tax evasions and money laundering. You have got to stop with such nonsense.

I never claimed are. I am just finding ways to slow them down.

Just like Huawei, ZTE, SMIC, and TikTok, evidence or truth are not important. The point is to slow them down.