• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Drama Epic Games vs Apple in court face off INCLUDING Tim Sweeney , LIVE !!!

PaintTinJr

Member
Jan 30, 2020
1,001
2,448
455
Oxfordshire, England
Even back then, I think MS had the option of setting the default programs. The issue was that they stepped in and blocked OEMs from preloading the competition which was basically the definition of monopolism.
IIRC the problem was way beyond that and was actually to do with how IE4 had desktop integration - in Win95,Win95 OSR2 and Win98 - that netscape, etc couldn't compete with.

The integration relied on Windows API features that were never fully published for external developers IIRC, and even when preview APIs were fully documented, Microsoft changed the release API without communicating this, so developers like Novell (word perfect) couldn't compete at a fair level with Office at release, because their program couldn't be ready as they'd developed on API calls that didn't finish up in the product - which is fair on one count - as Windows versions needed to release to be finalised - but could certainly be used as a method to unfairly kill off competition IMHO.

At the time when the problem first occurred browsers were still distributed physically by CD as a free ISP service signup disc(or downloaded from ftp client, which basic browser document retrieval is essentially built on). With MSN launching in competition to AOL, Yahoo, etc, the integrated IE browser and with prelinked favourites to MSN/hotmail certainly gave competitors reason for concern, and certainly looked to me like it was more like a AT&T/Cable&Wireless problem again if left unchecked.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
36,170
54,861
2,510
California
manabyte.com
  • LOL
Reactions: Blochu
Dec 14, 2008
33,861
2,396
1,360
Why user permissions would need to be connected to specific store?
The only reason Apple can enforce restrictions like that is because you have to use their store. The moment you can use any store, there is no longer enforcement and the app can do whatever it wants.

Which is of course what Tencent/China wants. They want to be able to bypass all protections Apple gives it's users outside of China.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,861
2,396
1,360
Epic isn't owned by China. Stop spreading that lie. They want Fortnite, the biggest game in the world, back on iOS.
Maybe they shouldn't have purposely tried to bypass Apple's rules then, knowing they would be kicked off the store. Fortnite on iOS was only like 6% of total revenues or something, they couldn't give less of a fuck if it's back on iOS or not. This isn't about the money, it's about trying to destroy American technology companies.

Epic is 40% owned by Tencent, which last I checked is one of the largest companies in China and very closely aligned with the Chinese government.
 
Last edited:
Feb 13, 2019
153
197
255
I still think it’s funny that Epic is pretending to be the hero here and many gamers believe it. It’s just a move to increase their profit. I honestly don’t understand on what basis they are going to win. Apple has every right to ask for some money to release something on their own platform. No one is forcing Epic to offer Fortnite on Apple if they are no happy about it.
 

theHFIC

Member
Aug 22, 2014
771
1,761
810
Hoping at some point during this trial there are some more details on the PUBG vs Epic lawsuit that was closed/settled with unspecified reasons.

The only reason this lawsuit is happening is because of how Fortnite took off after the Battle Royale mode was added which was well after PUBG came out as an early success. PUBG Corp being an Unreal Engine licensee worked alongside Epic for a long time during those early release months and Epic pretty much Copy-Pasted the whole premise into their failing Fortnite game. Does anyone remember how horrible that weird 3d zombie tower defense side of Fortnite was?

Then Epic gives the product away for free since they own the engine instead of the 30$ charge and if PUBG acts up they could just revoke their license.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
Hoping at some point during this trial there are some more details on the PUBG vs Epic lawsuit that was closed/settled with unspecified reasons.

The only reason this lawsuit is happening is because of how Fortnite took off after the Battle Royale mode was added which was well after PUBG came out as an early success. PUBG Corp being an Unreal Engine licensee worked alongside Epic for a long time during those early release months and Epic pretty much Copy-Pasted the whole premise into their failing Fortnite game. Does anyone remember how horrible that weird 3d zombie tower defense side of Fortnite was?

Then Epic gives the product away for free since they own the engine instead of the 30$ charge and if PUBG acts up they could just revoke their license.

Could you imagine no Mortal Kombat because Street Fighter existed? The precedent would have made all gamers lose out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Griffon

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
Epic isn't owned by China. Stop spreading that lie. They want Fortnite, the biggest game in the world, back on iOS.
If that was the goal, they shouldn't have taken if off themselves by deliberately breaching their contract with Apple. They had been existing there under the existing rules for how many years? If you're mad about not being able to play on your iPad, be sure to direct that at Epic so they know users would like to have it back on there.

It's clear their intent was to force their way to a reduced processing fee at minimum, but really they want to argue that Apple has a monopoly over their own device so they should be able to run the Epic store on there. Of course any closed ecosystem device has 100% control over their own store so would count as a monopoly in the same sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: FloatingIslands

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,224
3,244
375
i don't like Sweeney , really, but if there's someone that i dislike more, that's Apple. I would love to see a judge finally punish the predatory and monopolistic behavior of a company that thinks is being able to decide what is right or wrong for its users. The quality of Apple products is objective but it is thanks to an exorbitant cost (which has raised all the prices on the market). I very much hope Epic wins ... and if that changes the rules of the market by opening what are now closed platforms (such as consoles) so be it .. another advantage for us.
 

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
If that was the goal, they shouldn't have taken if off themselves by deliberately breaching their contract with Apple. They had been existing there under the existing rules for how many years? If you're mad about not being able to play on your iPad, be sure to direct that at Epic so they know users would like to have it back on there.

It's clear their intent was to force their way to a reduced processing fee at minimum, but really they want to argue that Apple has a monopoly over their own device so they should be able to run the Epic store on there. Of course any closed ecosystem device has 100% control over their own store so would count as a monopoly in the same sense.
Shrugging off accusations of being a Stepford Wife for the CCP, Tim Sweeney has always been consistent in his disdain of closed ecosystems. He was very vocal when Windows RT was released as all apps written for the ARM build of Windows were behind the Microsoft store, mandating the same 30% revenue split as iOS and Android. For mine, he is really arguing a principle.

You don't get leverage if you're not popular. You can't bring the same level of heat and public interest to a trial without first generating fans.

I'm not sure how the ruling on this particular case will be decided, but I imagine this is only beginning for Apple.
 

theHFIC

Member
Aug 22, 2014
771
1,761
810
Could you imagine no Mortal Kombat because Street Fighter existed? The precedent would have made all gamers lose out.
I wasn't talking genre clones in this case like Street Fighter vs MK.

During the early period of PUBG they worked closely with Epic because their engine wasn't handling the game properly at that point. Epic took what they learned working with them and released a direct clone of the game and gave it away for free.

Would Fortnite Battle Royale have achieved the same level of success that PUBG did if it was released for $30 as well? Doubtful. Vanilla Fortnite was knocking on death's door at the time. Epic used the engine that they own to subsidize the release of their Battle Royale clone for free. PUBG Corp, as a licensee of the Unreal Engine from Epic Games is limited in what they could do because a revocation of their Unreal Engine license would have ended the game altogether.

Nothing is stopping an Engine creator from cherry picking good ideas that their engine licensees use, but it is a scummy practice when they can make or break the company that came up with the idea if faced with litigation over it. Look how quickly Epic started crying when Apple threatened to revoke their license for the Unreal Engine as a whole on Mac/iOS because of how many people they license it to.

Apple isn't innocent from this either, all the way back in the days of Sherlock search of classic Mac OS and early mac OS X which was a direct clone of Watson. Apple gave the product away for free in the OS and Watson, the originator, faded out of existence. In the Apple world, Sherlocking is a common term for Apple stealing an app or 3rd party implemented OS feature idea or concept and building it into the OS.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
19,202
26,844
820
Any apple user who shares this sentiment is free to switch to android at any point. There’s no monopoly.
I use an Apple work phone but never use it for any other services, so I have no skin the game with them.

But I think what people are getting at is that there's Android, but if you bail the Apple ecosystem you lose whatever content that goes with it, so you got to start over.

People want freedom to bring their bags with them from ecosystem to ecosystem.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DonJuanSchlong

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
Any apple user who shares this sentiment is free to switch to android at any point. There’s no monopoly.
This remark is thrown off the cuff as if it were easy and that there's no tangible costs involved.

Small and medium businesses have invested huge into line of business applications on the App store.
Businesses have invested huge into production app licenses for staff.
Consumers have invested huge into media libraries.

These platforms owners have entered into an unrivaled position of power and have you by the short and curlies. They get to decide what's moral, what's immoral. What's hate speech, what's free speech. What's allowed and not allowed. Who lives and who dies. All without any kind of due process.

Because the business you work for has invested millions into an iOS app and not an Android app, means you often can't just be "free to switch".
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
i don't like Sweeney , really, but if there's someone that i dislike more, that's Apple. I would love to see a judge finally punish the predatory and monopolistic behavior of a company that thinks is being able to decide what is right or wrong for its users. The quality of Apple products is objective but it is thanks to an exorbitant cost (which has raised all the prices on the market). I very much hope Epic wins ... and if that changes the rules of the market by opening what are now closed platforms (such as consoles) so be it .. another advantage for us.

The cheap ass bastard in me is so triggered right now, I want my low-cost, subsidized hardware. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

It's not like we'll have a choice though, if we have to live without it.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,861
2,396
1,360
As someone as used both OS
- Android kinda sucks… because manufacturers change the system, install bloateware and most of the times, quickly drop support for Android OS.
Do you understand that Apple is able to support their devices for 8+ years because they control the whole system? What do you think would happen if Apple had to support the same chaotic ecosystem that Google does?

The walled garden has benefits. If you leave the walled garden for the Wild West of Android, you're going to find it a different environment. The walled garden is safe, but you give up freedom for it. The Wild West is free, but you give up safety for it.

I say this as someone who uses a OnePlus 5T as their daily driver but is typing this on a MacBook Pro. My iPad is to my right within arm's reach, next to my Windows gaming laptop. I've seen some shit too, and I have stayed on Android for my daily driver phone because in the end I prefer to be free, and I understand that means I won't be safe.

Epic Games Store exists on Android, btw. No one fucking cares about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

hlm666

Member
Feb 25, 2021
178
205
200
Maybe they shouldn't have purposely tried to bypass Apple's rules then, knowing they would be kicked off the store. Fortnite on iOS was only like 6% of total revenues or something, they couldn't give less of a fuck if it's back on iOS or not. This isn't about the money, it's about trying to destroy American technology companies.

Epic is 40% owned by Tencent, which last I checked is one of the largest companies in China and very closely aligned with the Chinese government.
Tencent makes a bit of cash from mobile, it's amusing people can't see how they benefit from being able to use a store on ios they would own 40% of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
Apple shouldn't be allowed to have their own streaming service?
Yeah, right?
I mean, hell yeah:





#PoorTrillionaire
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: DonJuanSchlong

DJTaurus

Member
Apr 6, 2012
126
504
735
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
It will be interesting to see what kind of a case Spotify can bring specifically.
"we cannot compete with music streaming of the filthy fucks' own music streaming service, as we are supposed to cede large portion of our revenue to the said filthy fucks"

And it is convincing enough to me, and not only me:




DJTaurus DJTaurus
The "but why can MS and Sony do it" has been addressed numerous times in this very thread, including in court citations.

And I would have expected from someone posting on a gaming forum to know that XB and PS are often sold at a loss, unlike, you know, those overpriced fashion electronics by Der Apfel.
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
Imagine if Facebook could just use a 3rd party app store to bypass this and keep tracking you.
There is more to it:
1) This blocks you from others, but not Apple, who even has been caught tracking user movement (recording it, when offline, and dialing back home, quite a bit of malicious intent) for no visible reason. It also creates a fake safety feeling, when Dolphin browser dials back on all platforms, but people with overpriced fashion electronics feel "safe".
2) We even had scandal with China infecting Ughur overpriced fashion electronics by having them merely visit a site. Der Apfels security is soo cool.
3) Targeted ads are better for both consumer and businesses

Targeted ads is how I bought a roof for my terrace.

If there is a spot for ads on the page, I'd rather it had something that might be of interest to me, than random crap wasting my attention, internet traffic and somebodies money.
 

hlm666

Member
Feb 25, 2021
178
205
200
The "but why can MS and Sony do it" has been addressed numerous times in this very thread, including in court citations.

And I would have expected from someone posting on a gaming forum to know that XB and PS are often sold at a loss, unlike, you know, those overpriced fashion electronics by Der Apfel.

Tencent Timmy has used it as an excuse but there is actually no law that you can't charge more for a service/fee than a competitor using a loss leader model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blochu

Zeroing

Member
Sep 19, 2019
1,173
1,635
365
Do you understand that Apple is able to support their devices for 8+ years because they control the whole system? What do you think would happen if Apple had to support the same chaotic ecosystem that Google does?

The walled garden has benefits. If you leave the walled garden for the Wild West of Android, you're going to find it a different environment. The walled garden is safe, but you give up freedom for it. The Wild West is free, but you give up safety for it.

I say this as someone who uses a OnePlus 5T as their daily driver but is typing this on a MacBook Pro. My iPad is to my right within arm's reach, next to my Windows gaming laptop. I've seen some shit too, and I have stayed on Android for my daily driver phone because in the end I prefer to be free, and I understand that means I won't be safe.

Epic Games Store exists on Android, btw. No one fucking cares about it.
I know what all that! I was just pointing out just because there is “another option” doesn’t mean that option is good! Or for everyone.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
Tencent Timmy has used it as an excuse but there is actually no law that you can't charge more for a service/fee than a competitor using a loss leader model.
There is a lot that is up to the judge to interpret, that is why it's not just about laws, but about principles, in this case in particular.

A store losing money on hardware can make a point of not being able to continue to function if not allowed the exclusiveness of the store, unlike Der Apfel. (people raised "but what about PS/XB" in this thread)
 
Last edited:

WelshBluebird

Member
Jul 25, 2007
371
477
1,175
31
Wales, UK
Do you understand that Apple is able to support their devices for 8+ years because they control the whole system?
How long Apple support their phones has literally nothing to do with the idea of a third party app store or the ability for apps to offer in app purchases outside of Apple's ecosystem though. Literally nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Griffon

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
"we cannot compete with music streaming of the filthy fucks' own music streaming service, as we are supposed to cede large portion of our revenue to the said filthy fucks"

And it is convincing enough to me, and not only me:




DJTaurus DJTaurus
The "but why can MS and Sony do it" has been addressed numerous times in this very thread, including in court citations.

And I would have expected from someone posting on a gaming forum to know that XB and PS are often sold at a loss, unlike, you know, those overpriced fashion electronics by Der Apfel.

The obvious problem with the logic there is that Apple Music is available on other closed platforms where they have the same "tax" issues as Spotify. Plus, Spotify no longer sells premium subscriptions on iPhone, and wasn't removed from iPhone for that.

US anti-trust laws do not differentiate between different specific business models, etc. MS and Sony don't have to sell their hardware at a loss, them willfully deciding to do that isn't a particularly compelling argument. Epic is trying to be friendly to the consoles, sure. But that won't stop the attacks from others. The one that has popped up already against Sony will just be the first of thousands they will need to deal with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blochu and smbu2000

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
The obvious problem with the logic there is that Apple Music is available on other closed platforms where they have the same "tax" issues as Spotify. Plus, Spotify no longer sells premium subscriptions on iPhone, and wasn't removed from iPhone for that.

US anti-trust laws do not differentiate between different specific business models, etc. MS and Sony don't have to sell their hardware at a loss, them willfully deciding to do that isn't a particularly compelling argument. Epic is trying to be friendly to the consoles, sure. But that won't stop the attacks from others. The one that has popped up already against Sony will just be the first of thousands they will need to deal with.
What logic problem is there??

iOS has a platform of over a billion users. One-eight (12.5%) of the Earth's population. Who cares that Apple has to pay other platforms with that kind of a leg up on the competition. Spotify also can't sell premium subscriptions on iPhone because it eats into their margins too much.

I think the current laws say that there's no legal precedent between business models. This is what Epic and Microsoft are specifically trying to argue in this case.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,980
20,286
755
As mobile devices increasingly become people's only computer (not to mention, look at the push Apple has made to have people buy iPads over Macs with their advertising), and software is essential for a huge number of businesses to service their customers ...

Should Apple be the worlds gatekeeper over which business software is or is not allowed to exist? Should Apple be allowed to shut down any business it wants, at any time? Should Apple be able to make an arbitrary and theoretically irreversible decision against said company, often times with no explanation and no recourse? Or should the business be allowed to directly distribute its software to its own customers without Apple's controlling oversight? Does Apple deserve 30% of every businesses revenue on Earth? Is that what you think?

Do not say "then use an Android." That is not a viable answer. The majority of smart devices in the U.S. are iPhones. And Google has the same control over the play store. "Sideloading" (i.e. just installing software) on Android is a hassle almost no non-savvy user will ever enable.

Also, "incredibly popular" is kind of an understatement. I would say these devices have become the basis of a significant part of our global economy. Again, do you think Apple has the right to a huge chunk of the global economy just because they made the device the software can run on? It doesn't work that way with any other general computing platforms. I can't imagine this not eventually changing through laws at some point. It's just unsustainable.
Jesus Christ, every part of this argument is factually wrong
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
The obvious problem with the logic there is that Apple Music is available on other closed platforms where they have the same "tax" issues as Spotify.
It's a totally moot point (as Spotify doesn't own any such platform), but there is, in fact, no other platform with practices as filthy as Apple's.

US anti-trust laws. MS and Sony don't have to sell their hardware at a loss, them willfully deciding to do that isn't a particularly compelling argument.
Whatever they are, good luck for US, but judging from the arguments made in US court, things are where one would have expected it, from a sane state, it did indeed matter whether they sell it at a loss.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DonJuanSchlong

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
Whatever they are, good luck for US, but judging from the arguments made in US court, things are where one would have expected it, from a sane state, it did indeed matter whether they sell it at a loss.

What? Nothing has come to fruition yet, I don't see how you can say one way or the other whether it mattered or not at this point. LOL

There will be many stages to this. If Epic is successful in their attempt at making the case that a hardware vendor is an automatic monopoly if they retain full control of the ecosystem they create, it will take many years and additional court cases to decide if the business model distinction holds up. I don't think it will, you think it will, but nothing has happened yet to determine that.

Epic doesn't really care about this distinction anyway, let's be real. They're are acting in their self interest alone here. I doubt they would suddenly be okay with the status quo if iOS was forked into 30 different OS variants with the same 30% cut in place, or if Apple decided to sell their hardware at a loss and maintain the cut.

This is one of those rare instances where I don't agree with your position, but I'm completely rooting for it. I hope you are right 100%. Hopefully there won't be a lot of negative ramifications to this if Epic is successful.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Endless Fluff

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
What logic problem is there??

iOS has a platform of over a billion users. One-eight (12.5%) of the Earth's population. Who cares that Apple has to pay other platforms with that kind of a leg up on the competition. Spotify also can't sell premium subscriptions on iPhone because it eats into their margins too much.

I think the current laws say that there's no legal precedent between business models. This is what Epic and Microsoft are specifically trying to argue in this case.

Epic and Microsoft don't get to decide how US laws are viewed and interpreted. That's the rub. They can formulate their case as carefully as they want, it doesn't stop the case from being used as a precedent in part, for additional cases that will remove the business model distinction. Which might not be that hard since US Anti-trust law is specifically designed to be applied uniformly without consideration for business size or profitability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
Nothing has come to fruition yet
Making such points would not make sense, if it didn't matter.
Apple would not try to invalidate MS claims over it either, had it not mattered.

Last, but not least, I live in EU and the link I've shared was specifically about EU being after filthy Apple's filthy practices.

If Epic is successful in their attempt at making the case that a hardware vendor is an automatic monopoly if they retain full control of the ecosystem they create, it will take many years and additional court cases to decide if the business model distinction holds up.
Apple is being targeted as what it is, running in circles around already debunked "but PS/Xbox" won't automatically make any such ruling affect the said platforms.

Epic doesn't really care...
Epic did contrast MS vs Apple for a reason, that is indicative enough to me, that they do care.

Comparison to google's Android is not correct, as google allows connecting to as many app stores, as user wants, while still providing their services and while allowing forking the hell out of the OS.

They were fine with 30% before, they got greedy and want the whole pie.
I find it amusing that someone could mention Apple and someone else in the same in the same sentence and spin that someone else as greedy.

Getting a cut from SUBSCRIPTION was something unseen until Mr Jobs got brilliant idea of getting a cut from everything. Even getting a cut from mobile providers, for selling iphones, which looked so innovative to people who have never used devices like this:

This lawsuit is about setting limits on milking that filthy Apfel is allowed to exercise.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: DonJuanSchlong

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
  • Like
Reactions: Blochu

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
In the minds of the foolish it is a "debunked" theory
Apple being targeted specifically in the past is a fact, there is nothing foolish about rulings about it not automatically expanding to something else.

And I also count more on EU, not US in this.