Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes. Epic is a publicly owned company and you can most likely find their quarterly results in their investors relations page. You can examine their financials and get insights into their operations, costs, profits and losses.
It’s not a public company 🙄
 
I couldn’t say it better. You explained it perfectly. It is mind boggling to me how some people think it’s ok to use someone else’s platform but not feel like they need to pay anything for the privilege. Do these people live in apartments where they don’t need to pay money to their landlords? I know for sure I receive a bill for my mortgage every single month. I know the reality I live in.
Stop saying they didn’t pay, they did just like every other developer 🙄
 
Given that the ruling is that Apple is not a monopoly, I believe Apple can deny Epic in their store for whatever reason they feel like. I may be wrong, not a legal expert. But I believe that if they just happen to think Sweeney is a d**k, they don’t have to sell his products.

I’ll be that guy: Imagine this fight if Steve was still alive…
Please stop saying there weren’t found to be a monopoly, the judge had no opinion other than to say Epic failed to prove it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velli
I think they want their app back on the App Store. Apple probably won’t allow it yet. They tired in South Korea after the ruling but Apple said no.
It’s been my understanding that all apple has ever required for them to be reinstated is that they remove the offending code. Well now their code doesn’t break the rules.
 
It’s been my understanding that all apple has ever required for them to be reinstated is that they remove the offending code. Well now their code doesn’t break the rules.

Yes it does - the court’s order requires apple to allow a link/button/etc. that goes to a different payment option, but does not require apple to permit in-app purchases using that other system. Additionally, Apple is entitled to charge developers who do that, which they may or may not decide to do.
 
I am being perfectly clear. Can’t help you if you don’t understand them.

You're not, actually. I showed the ridiculousness of your cashier example, and you had no rational response to that, so you bailed with some nonsensical excuse about not being able to talk publicly about the issue all of a sudden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and cardfan
That's where you're wrong.

Not in the US. I don't know which country you live in. Like, Apple has clearly higher margins on phones than their competitors.

Lemme give you an example: There are two gas stations across from each other near me, and they have different prices, which are adjusted at will. One is a Chevron, and its price even differs from another Chevron nearby. If they were all the same, I'd be suspicious of price-fixing.
As the judge who presided over this recent case says, “Success is not illegal”. That should address first part of your company without further explanation.

As for your example, crude oil is a commodity which isn’t comparable neither Apple’s nor Epic’s structure. Like most commodities, the fundamental driver of oil's price is supply and demand in the market.
Oil supply is controlled by a group of oil-producing nations called OPEC.
Lastly, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the primary body that regulates oil and gas companies. They oversee other aspects of oil companies such as environment, land, etc. and can be done at federal or state level.

I think this crash course should explain to you why you can’t compare commodities to consumer electronics or video games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N1noodle
Really, man? Are you serious with your comments? Epic is a publicly traded company. You can buy Epic stocks, can’t you? What do you think that’s called?

Screen Shot 2021-09-14 at 9.19.27 PM.png


 
  • Like
Reactions: cardfan
You're not, actually. I showed the ridiculousness of your cashier example, and you had no rational response to that, so you bailed with some nonsensical excuse about not being able to talk publicly about the issue all of a sudden.
Your example has holes. Reason for typical rich customer to treat the cashier bad is because of their sense of superiority. These people are generally educated and they know very well how to be civilized and proper when they have people equal to their perceived level. Comparatively, a Walmart customer can be nasty due to their lack of education or simply not having the proper lifestyle for good manners. They are rude because of their lifestyle. Totally different reasons.
 
It’s been my understanding that all apple has ever required for them to be reinstated is that they remove the offending code. Well now their code doesn’t break the rules.
Apple still requires Epic to agree to App Store guidelines, particularly the app review process. Epic refuses even to date. Therefore, Apple doesn’t let them back in.
 
Your example has holes. Reason for typical rich customer to treat the cashier bad is because of their sense of superiority. These people are generally educated and they know very well how to be civilized and proper when they have people equal to their perceived level. Comparatively, a Walmart customer can be nasty due to their lack of education or simply not having the proper lifestyle for good manners. They are rude because of their lifestyle. Totally different reasons.

Well at least you're actually responding to what I said now. But it's really YOUR example (customers and cashiers) - I was just playing off it. The problem is your entire premise is false. It's not rude/mistreatment to let cashiers (or dedicated baggers, if the store has them) bag your items for you. That's their JOB. And even if it WERE rude, you're simply assuming why one group or another is acting the way they are. "Oh, it must because they have X amount of dollars in their bank account and think they're better than them" or "Oh, it must because they're poor and weren't educated properly." Those are QUITE the assumptions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Please stop saying there weren’t found to be a monopoly, the judge had no opinion other than to say Epic failed to prove it.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Courts ruled Epic could not prove their monopoly claim. Therefore, Apple cannot be ruled to be a monopoly.

Courts need evidence. No evidence, no ruling. Courts don’t care about your unsubstantiated opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.