Want to bet?
Want to bet?
They better jump start few AWS databases.Pale or prevail.
Which ever way this winds up MacRumors will implode from all of the activity.
You have a weird boner for epic man. It’s like you think they’re some sort of crusader out to rescue innocent devs out of the iron grip of the big bad.They deserve damages for pain and suffering.
Ah so what you're saying is people can't be wrong, change their minds/point of view, nor can the environment, market or economics change in 8 years. Tell me more.I'm going to leave this quote here:
"We're now in a time where indie developers can flourish on the App Store and Steam and all these distribution mechanisms that can enable a small developer to succeed" -Tim Sweeney
40 seconds in:
Go buy a disc version of the game. There you go - alternative marketplace.
Ah so what you're saying is people can't be wrong, change their minds/point of view, nor can the environment, market or economics change in 8 years. Tell me more.
Apple removed it, however it's still on people's phones and people are still using the Epic pay direct option.
They never threatened to kill every game that is using unreal. They threatened to prevent Epic from using apple sdks to develop *updates* to unreal.Yeah but surely they can kill for night and not every other game that is using unreal.
Looks like Apple didn’t impress the judge much.
But apparently they have data that people switch all the time. I’d be curious to see this. We hear about Android users switching to Apple but the company never talks about the reverse. In this case I’m not sure showing data on people switching FROM Android would help Apple’s case.
Yeah but surely they can kill for night and not every other game that is using unreal.
It makes Microsoft hypocritical at the very least.That doesn't make it right!
And if you bought that disc from say BestBuy or whatever other type store (Target, Walmart, etc.) They up charge too. So, even that $59.99 or $69.98 or whatever game you buy. Has a markup fee to it. That goes to the store.
I know what was in the letter—a letter, please realize, that Epic’s attorneys wrote knowing it would be evidence in the lawsuit they had already drafted.Rather than try to explain to you for the third time that this is not what Epic asked Apple for, I'm just going to post quotes from Apple's own legal opposition, which states exactly what Epic asked for:
You are entirely within your right to construct your own make-believe chain of events in which Epic secretly asked Apple for a special revenue sharing arrangement, and only implemented their IAP bypass when Apple refused, if that helps you to justify your support for Apple in this fight. But everyone else is able to read the legal documentation and see exactly what is being alleged by both parties, in which Apple themselves make it clear that Epic wanted to implement an alternative to IAP from the outset, and Apple knew full well that this would open the floodgates for every other developer on the App Store.
Well no 💩 a vast legal budget doesn’t guarantee they are impervious to lawsuit. I never said that.Epic is arguing that Apple holds a monopoly as it relates software distribution on iOS devices, that it leverages that monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in digital payment processing, and that such action is illegal. If the court agrees, they could remedy that by allowing software outside of the app store or allow payment processing from alternate sources.
It is not relevant of the terms of service are blanket or not or whether Epic agreed if the court determines that the agreement itself is illegal due to violating anti-trust legislation. It would be comparable to agreeing to a 1,000% annual interest rate on a loan. Though the terms are specific to you and you signed said agreement, the agreement offered itself is illegal (in most if not all states) and the contract would be voided. In some states, you would be responsible for repaying the principal only, in others you would not be responsible for repayment of either the interest or the principal.
Ultimately, the question is are the terms offered and agreed to legal and therefore part of a legally binding agreement.
Edit to add: The size of the legal budget is not inconsequential, however it is by no means a guarantee that they will win a case, are impervious to being served with a lawsuit (obviously based on the lawsuit), or that they will win any such lawsuit. Many companies with excessive legal budgets have lost such cases in the past (Google in the EU, Microsoft in the US then later in the EU for quick tech examples).
What's with all that in app nickel and dime-ing. I guess they make 'good' money on that and don't want to pay commission on it? Or as much commission?
Don't Epic have their own store rules?
Azrael.
Here is a company, with a competing platform, and whose software uses the Epic engine — what would you expect them to say? Still, one out of 1000+ developers showing support for Epic isn’t much support at all.
It sounds like all Epic has to do right now is resubmit their app without the circumventing mechanism. They can still proceed with their lawsuit, but at least their engine would still be available. Sounds pretty simple, and reasonable to me.
You really do not get that we all lose if Apple is forced to allow alternative stores. If you do not like the rules then go somewhere else.Better fix: government mandates that each platform should allow for alternative app stores. Problem solved!
And here lies the problem. Surely, 30% is not much when you are small and this is taken care of but when it gets out small and suddenly you pay millions I'm sure you wouldn't be ok with it.
I would rather Apple introduces tresholds or reduce the fees overall.
The App store is massively profitable for Apple and the profit they make from running just App store is something any other company could dream about. And thats essentially without any hard work.
30% is just too much especially when you grow. I'm with Epic on this one.
Apple is holding monopoly pretty much and it behaves like monopoly. Time for change.
Lets reverse that. There is no way Apple would be happy to pay someone 30% of their profit and you can bet that if Apple was in Epic shoes that would squeeze the other side until they would get better deal. Apple does this with everyone and yet they act like 'victims' here.
Nah, Apple would never allow this if it was the other way around so its time that Apple gets Apple treatment.
Monopoly is almost always never good.
You really do not get that we all lose if Apple is forced to allow alternative stores. If you do not like the rules then go somewhere else.