• 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 !!!

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,011
5,371
540
Honestly speaking? Yes I do. They invented that platform, they make the rules. If the rules don't breach the law in any way than you can decide if you want to follow them and sell on their platform or not. Epic knew they take that big cut. Epic agreed to those terms and suddenly they didn't. Sorry that's not how it works. Then they tried to play the victim after breaching a contract. It's that simple. If they we're not happy with the cut then they shouldn't have agreed to it in the first point. I can't take a loan out from my bank and then suddenly accuse them of wanting way to high payments.

Everyone who thinks epic is right in this is wrong, I'm sorry to say that but it's the truth.

Agreed, the whole argument about it being A-OK when they started the app store but suddenly becoming problematic/illegal when they hit some arbitrary number of users that Epic decided is too many is laughable IMO.
 
Last edited:

Chiggs

Gold Member
Jan 20, 2005
14,576
5,784
1,855
Uhh yes, its their platform. Just like Android, Nintendo, Playstation, Steam and Xbox collects 30%. Epic signed up knowing and were happy with the 30% but now they want all that money to themselves. So you'd rather defend a greedy company like Epic that screwed the folks on iOS, you don't think that's ridiculous?

That's my take on it, as well. I think 30% is quite a haul, but it's not out of the question. Apple built their entire ecosystem, convinced hundreds of millions of people to use it, and they can set the pricing as they see fit.
 

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Mar 15, 2007
15,546
4,495
1,740
Honestly speaking? Yes I do. They invented that platform, they make the rules. If the rules don't breach the law in any way than you can decide if you want to follow them and sell on their platform or not. Epic knew they take that big cut. Epic agreed to those terms and suddenly they didn't. Sorry that's not how it works. Then they tried to play the victim after breaching a contract. It's that simple. If they we're not happy with the cut then they shouldn't have agreed to it in the first point. I can't take a loan out from my bank and then suddenly accuse them of wanting way to high payments.

Everyone who thinks epic is right in this is wrong, I'm sorry to say that but it's the truth.
Agreed. I don’t even understand why this case has split people’s opinions, the repercussions of a decision in favor of EPIC could be frightening as it could be used to nullify all sorts of legal agreements.
Imagine your bank raising your mortgage rate because it is now “the fair rate”. You go to court to defend yourself and the bank’s lawyers use this trial going in favor of EPIC as a precedent for reevaluating contracts on the basis of “fair” economic conditions. Fuck that.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
18,996
12,800
2,110
Laws are not set in stone and are driven by principles such as "customers interest" and (at least officially) not on "some rich motherfuckers can strongarm other companies, but it's their success, so".
Exactly, if you get too big and too necessary to the economy as you provide an essential service you get governed by public utilities rules designed to protect people (even the corporate apologists).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzies

kuncol02

Member
Apr 4, 2020
1,637
1,914
455
Agreed. I don’t even understand why this case has split people’s opinions, the repercussions of a decision in favor of EPIC could be frightening as it could be used to nullify all sorts of legal agreements.
Imagine your bank raising your mortgage rate because it is now “the fair rate”. You go to court to defend yourself and the bank’s lawyers use this trial going in favor of EPIC as a precedent for reevaluating contracts on the basis of “fair” economic conditions. Fuck that.
Don't tell me that you don't know that any contract can be taken to court and changed or canceled if it's breaking any law (including antitrust laws). You never heard about "abusive contract terms"?
 

Sean Mirrsen

Member
Sep 30, 2020
218
379
270
Togliatti, Russian Federation
Don't tell me that you don't know that any contract can be taken to court and changed or canceled if it's breaking any law (including antitrust laws). You never heard about "abusive contract terms"?
The contract terms never changed. The services offered did not become worse. The service fee did not increase. If the terms weren't abusive before, there's no reason for them to become abusive now. A platform can't be expected to throttle itself on account of other people wanting more money once it's become successful.
 

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,342
1,287
765
Germany
Laws are not set in stone and are driven by principles such as "customers interest" and (at least officially) not on "some rich motherfuckers can strongarm other companies, but it's their success, so".

Laws are made to prevent one side being able to exploit another side.
It's about protecting both, customer AND the party offering something, not just about protecting the customers.

B2B exists, and the same laws apply there, even though both parties could probably "strongarm" each other in a lengthy court battle etc. yet they have to play by the same rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Mar 15, 2007
15,546
4,495
1,740
Don't tell me that you don't know that any contract can be taken to court and changed or canceled if it's breaking any law (including antitrust laws). You never heard about "abusive contract terms"?
How are Apple’s contracts with developers breaking the law? EPIC has no ground to stand on. There is clearly a delusion problem here and everybody who ever felt wronged for not reading a contract is suddenly feeling vindicated by EPIC going full retard.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,350
945
Laws are made to prevent one side being able to exploit another side.
No. There is no one side "filthy business" and the other side "public" (not officially).
There is simply public and its interests, end of story.

B2B rules also follow "for the public interests" angle (at least as officially claimed).

The US patent office, the embarrassment of the planet Earth, is parasiting on the centuries old idea of the patents, which were created to, wait for it, stimulate innovation in the, wait for it, interest of the people.
 
Last edited:

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,342
1,287
765
Germany
No. There is no one side "filthy business" and the other side "public" (not officially).
There is simply public and its interests, end of story.

B2B rules also follow "for the public interests" angle (at least as officially claimed).

The US patent office, the embarrassment of the planet Earth, is parasiting on the centuries old idea of the patents, which were created to, wait for it, stimulate innovation in the, wait for it, interest of the people.

See that's what you get wrong.
Laws don't care if one side is a "filthy multi-billion dollar company" and the other a "poor public person".
They don't care. Laws are made so that each side of the contract, the party offering it and the party signing it, are protected.
It does not care about anything else. If Apple demands that they get 99.999% of all transactions made through their Store then even laws cannot protect you from it just because you think it is unfair.
If their demands don't break any laws, like bribing competition to have such cuts as well or other illegal Business practices, then no, not even the law can do anything against that.
They could even demand a 1 million dollar up-front payment per year if you want to have a SDK and even be able to develop for iOS. Still all within their right as a platform holder.

You think that "laws" are made "for the public person", but they are not. Laws are made so that everyone is on equal ground whether they are a homeless person on the street or the richest company in the world.

And to return to what this thread is about.
Epic signed a contract.
Epic decided it no longer honors that contact.
Apple revoked Epics licenses because of breach of contract.
Epic tries to play victim even though they not only broke the contract, but did so willingly.

Epic is wrong and it's really sad to see you in here trying to defend that practice. Epic has fucked up and now they are correctly so held accountable for it.
If you trust in the law, then you should be on Apples side, because if Epic wins, then this opens up the door for way worse contract manipulation than you might imagine.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
18,996
12,800
2,110
Laws don't care if one side is a "filthy multi-billion dollar company" and the other a "poor public person".
They don't care. Laws are made so that each side of the contract, the party offering it and the party signing it, are protected.
Nope, which is why anti monopoly and trust regulations exist, why FRAND terms exist for patents, and why public utilities or services/providers that are de facto public utilities are looked and regulated differently. We are still trying to advance the common good and. It in a laissez-faire “utopia” yet and hopefully never will.
 

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,342
1,287
765
Germany
Nope, which is why anti monopoly and trust regulations exist, why FRAND terms exist for patents, and why public utilities or services/providers that are de facto public utilities are looked and regulated differently. We are still trying to advance the common good and. It in a laissez-faire “utopia” yet and hopefully never will.

They work to ensure a healthy global marketplace. Apple is not a monopoly on the mobile market. If you want to sell on the mobile market, you have alternatives.
Like I said, as long as Apple is not involved in price-fixing or any other illegal activity, it can do on it's contracts whatever it wants. If you don't like their contracts, you can happily go to Android and sell it there, either on the Google Play Store, on one of the multiple alternative Android Stores or even by yourself as a APK Download.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
37,341
58,984
2,510
California
manabyte.com
They work to ensure a healthy global marketplace. Apple is not a monopoly on the mobile market. If you want to sell on the mobile market, you have alternatives.
Like I said, as long as Apple is not involved in price-fixing or any other illegal activity, it can do on it's contracts whatever it wants. If you don't like their contracts, you can happily go to Android and sell it there, either on the Google Play Store, on one of the multiple alternative Android Stores or even by yourself as a APK Download.

This argument didn't work for MS in the 90s.
 

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,568
41,520
1,310
39
Brazil
You think Epic “breaking their contract” with Apple was “screwing” millions of people, but you don’t see how ridiculous it is that Apple collects 30% of EVERYTHING that transpires on iOS? You think Apple deserves 30% of all businesses revenues, pre-tax?
Yes and yes imo.

It is their platform after all and they create the rules... 30% is a standard tax for closed systems.

If I’m against that I should be against Steam, Epic Game Store, PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, etc.

Why did Epic didn’t create a mobile phone with a closed OS and ask what they want? Instead they want to profit in other works.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,568
41,520
1,310
39
Brazil
This argument didn't work for MS in the 90s.
MS have a OS and apps on a open platform not closed lol
They made deals with retailers to make their apps and OSS the only option.

It not even possible to Apple to the same as MS because iPhone is already closed for the good.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,568
41,520
1,310
39
Brazil
That's not why MS faced anti-trust in the 90s. Try to know what you're "loling" about before replying next time.
It was exactly due that.
They made deals with retailers to force their system and apps in a open platform.

The antitrust lawsuit was about MS deals with Dell, HP, Acer, etc.

I will continue loling while you says nonsense.
 
Last edited:

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
37,341
58,984
2,510
California
manabyte.com
It was exactly due that.
They made deals with retailers to force their system and apps in a open platform.

The antitrust lawsuit was about MS deals with Dell, HP, Acer, etc.

No it wasn't. MS used their dominant position to force people to use their web browser (IE) over competitors like Netscape.

Much like Apple is now using their dominant position to force people into their walled garden.
 

FStubbs

Member
Aug 29, 2010
4,940
1,150
925
No it wasn't. MS used their dominant position to force people to use their web browser (IE) over competitors like Netscape.

Much like Apple is now using their dominant position to force people into their walled garden.
So how many iPhones are sold vs Android phones?

Microsoft had something like over 90% of the PC market during those cases.

Now, Apple DOES have that kind of dominant position with music, which is why they got in trouble with that a few years back.
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Member
Sep 19, 2019
1,297
1,787
365
So I’ve not been keeping with this drama, what’s happening?
 
Last edited:

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
37,341
58,984
2,510
California
manabyte.com
You have no ideia lol

No you don't. Research something next time.


The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling them is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of IE. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera), since it typically took a while to download or purchase such software at a store.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: ethomaz

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
10,089
23,875
970
Ireland
It was exactly due that.
They made deals with retailers to force their system and apps in a open platform.

The antitrust lawsuit was about MS deals with Dell, HP, Acer, etc.

I will continue loling while you says nonsense.
Actually Xbox strategy with gamepass mirrors Microsofts strategy with windows back then......

I believe Amstrad got Windows initially for free after refusing to pay anything but after a few years due to this strtegy of offering for free to those who held out, almost everyone was on windows and they now had a monopoly and obviously increased prices

Much the same with Gamepass, free trials, promotions etc In this case they did not own all the software, so it is exponentially more expensive but they can afford it due to being a monopolistic force in the computer OS business, particularly in the business to business area.
 

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,568
41,520
1,310
39
Brazil
No you don't. Research something next time.

Man it is hard to not understand.

The antitrust lawsuit in US was about

- MS had contractual agreements with various OEMs and IPSs to preserve and enhanced monopoly.
- To use a specific MS app you have to buy a Windows because it was bundled with it.
- MS made it intentionally difficult to change the default app to another 3rd-party app.
- MS was accused of use the low level OS access that give the MS app advantages in Windows... like smooth and faster UI.

That was the key points of the lawsuit.
The fact IE was bundled with Windows never was the real issue and the IE was removed in US from the Windows (it continue being bundled) but MS had to add options to change the defaults apps and offer standalone apps.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,011
5,371
540
No it wasn't. MS used their dominant position to force people to use their web browser (IE) over competitors like Netscape.

Much like Apple is now using their dominant position to force people into their walled garden.

Did each PC come with an armed goon in the box to force this IE usage? You were always free to use whatever browser you wanted. LOL

They did block OEM's from bundling rival products via Windows licensing agreements, which was a big no. Would be a stretch to say they "forced" anyone to use IE though, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ethomaz

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,568
41,520
1,310
39
Brazil
Did each PC come with an armed goon in the box to force this IE usage? You were always free to use whatever browser you wanted. LOL

They did block OEM's from bundling rival products via Windows licensing agreements, which was a big no. Would be a stretch to say they "forced" anyone to use IE though, IMO.
Yeap... if the case was just about having the IE bundled on Windows it should be a no case in the court.

MS never blocked anybody to install others software in the system... in fact the court never prohibited MS bundling the apps on Windows... they forced Ms to give easy options to use alternatives apps if the user wants.
 
Last edited:

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,342
1,287
765
Germany
Oh, they don't.
So which laws were broken by "Standard Oil" pretty please?


This is so shortsighted it hurts.

They we're a monopoly. It's like you guys try to argue with whatever you can grasp instead of looking at the full picture.
Standard oil was not split up for breaking law, it was split up because it was first and foremost a monopoly that was supposedly killing market competition by aggrecive price cutting.

Apple is neither a monopoly nor aggressive price cutting. If anything, Apple stays adamant that it's products should cost a premium, so the exact opposite. That's why anti trust has nothing to do here in this case.

In case you guys miss it constantly in normal text.

Apple is not a monopoly.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,894
2,444
1,360
Considering Apple controls 20% of worldwide smartphone market share and Android manufacturers control 80%, anyone arguing Apple was a monopoly would be laughed out of court.

Which is basically what's happening to Epic right now. I hope Tencent and China are funding Timmy adequately for this pointless exercise in legal time wasting.
 

harmny

Banned
Oct 29, 2020
1,396
3,577
410
Considering Apple controls 20% of worldwide smartphone market share and Android manufacturers control 80%, anyone arguing Apple was a monopoly would be laughed out of court.

Which is basically what's happening to Epic right now. I hope Tencent and China are funding Timmy adequately for this pointless exercise in legal time wasting.

And apple is funding China. Full circle
 

Dr Bass

Gold Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,716
5,071
955
Agreed, the whole argument about it being A-OK when they started the app store but suddenly becoming problematic/illegal when they hit some arbitrary number of users that Epic decided is too many is laughable IMO.
Really? At what point does Apple need to allow users to install software of their choosing on iOS?

Let’s say apple stops making the Mac. Everything is an iOS device. All Apple device software on the planet has to go through Apple. Is that ok?

The only reason you think that argument is laughable is because you’re not thinking. Should Apple have complete power over all businesses? The idea of a locked down general computing platform that serves consumers and businesses is what’s laughable. And it also goes against the very ideas Apple was founded on. Your view on this is incredibly simplistic and leads to extremely dangerous places for how software and our world works.

Do you think Apple should be able to decide if Uber or Lyft can exist?
 
Last edited:

Dr Bass

Gold Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,716
5,071
955
Considering Apple controls 20% of worldwide smartphone market share and Android manufacturers control 80%, anyone arguing Apple was a monopoly would be laughed out of court.

Which is basically what's happening to Epic right now. I hope Tencent and China are funding Timmy adequately for this pointless exercise in legal time wasting.
Look at the US numbers. This is a US case. And people that actually pay tend to be on iOS. It’s an important distinction. Use real facts.
 

harmny

Banned
Oct 29, 2020
1,396
3,577
410
Am I the only one that finds it funny that apple is the top 3 company in gaming revenue and they don't develop games?
Microsoft is fourth and they spent billions :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zoro7

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
152
230
Am I the only one that finds it funny that apple is the top 3 company in gaming revenue and they don't develop games?
Microsoft is fourth and they spent billions :messenger_tears_of_joy:
music video yo yos GIF
 
  • Like
Reactions: harmny

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,011
5,371
540
Really? At what point does Apple need to allow users to install software of their choosing on iOS?

Let’s say apple stops making the Mac. Everything is an iOS device. All Apple device software on the planet has to go through Apple. Is that ok?

The only reason you think that argument is laughable is because you’re not thinking. Should Apple have complete power over all businesses? The idea of a locked down general computing platform that serves consumers and businesses is what’s laughable. And it also goes against the very ideas Apple was founded on. Your view on this is incredibly simplistic and leads to extremely dangerous places for how software and our world works.

Do you think Apple should be able to decide if Uber or Lyft can exist?

Talk about a simplistic worldview, most of that drivel isn't worth commenting on.

First we banter on about things evil corporations could do but haven't yet (worthless). Then we assume that iPhone and iPad are the only compute devices in use, again useless hyperbolic nonsense. Then we move on to another unrealistic premise where we are implying that Apple is just randomly applying rules to pick and choose winners, which is just an imaginary dream at this point.

Plus, that ignores the fact that Uber and Lyft could easily go browser based.

Edit: The biggest elephant in the room is that these doomsday scenarios always assume that Apple is going to move in a very draconian direction in regards to apps, or basically limit apps to just their own, or some combination of the two. Yet they still hold their monopoly position in these scenarios. I can't see iPhone staying that popular if they suddenly dropped Uber, Lyft, Netflix, or Spotify, etc., if Apple becomes the ecosystem that is missing all the apps they will quickly move in the same direction as other mobile OS vendors that lacked the apps that users wanted.
 
Last edited:

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Jul 15, 2020
3,408
8,633
745
Imagine buying a badass car, and you wanna mod it even further. You buy the parts for the car, like coilovers, turbo, etc. Then your mechanic days there's no way to install these mods. Like at all. Imagine buying a device at full price, and being told you can't do x,y,z to said device. You can't even do an oil change yourself, even if you wanted to, because this manufacturer doesn't want you so DIY. Let's just vouch for this shitty company.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: ethomaz

Sakura

Member
Feb 13, 2012
9,442
1,508
900
Fukuoka, Japan
Really? At what point does Apple need to allow users to install software of their choosing on iOS?

Let’s say apple stops making the Mac. Everything is an iOS device. All Apple device software on the planet has to go through Apple. Is that ok?

The only reason you think that argument is laughable is because you’re not thinking. Should Apple have complete power over all businesses? The idea of a locked down general computing platform that serves consumers and businesses is what’s laughable. And it also goes against the very ideas Apple was founded on. Your view on this is incredibly simplistic and leads to extremely dangerous places for how software and our world works.

Do you think Apple should be able to decide if Uber or Lyft can exist?
This doesn't make any sense. Apple is not a monopoly. They don't decide whether Uber or Lyft can exist, they don't have "complete power" and nobody is saying they should. If you wanted to use Uber or Lyft you could do it on an Android. Or they could let you do it from your browser.
It's the same thing with Fortnite. If Epic doesn't want to play by Apple's rules, then they don't get to be on iPhones. Does that mean Epic doesn't exist anymore? Does that mean that Epic can't make money any more? No, because Apple isn't a monopoly. You can play Fortnite on your PC, or on an Android, or on consoles, etc.
You people keep talking like Apple is a monopoly, when it isn't. If Apple DID control everything, and there were no alternatives, and they were playing dirty, then you would have an argument. But as it stands, they don't. If Apple decided they didn't want Uber or Lyft etc on their service, then that just increases the attractiveness of Android at Apple's expense. That is how competition works.

Imagine buying a badass car, and you wanna mod it even further. You buy the parts for the car, like coilovers, turbo, etc. Then your mechanic days there's no way to install these mods. Like at all. Imagine buying a device at full price, and being told you can't do x,y,z to said device. You can't even do an oil change yourself, even if you wanted to, because this manufacturer doesn't want you so DIY. Let's just vouch for this shitty company.
If you wanted to mod a card, and bought a car that you cannot mod, or even do an oil change, then that is on you for being a dumbass and not researching your purchase before hand. That car would be competing against cars where you can do all that stuff, and that is the whole point.
 
Last edited:

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Jul 15, 2020
3,408
8,633
745
This doesn't make any sense. Apple is not a monopoly. They don't decide whether Uber or Lyft can exist, they don't have "complete power" and nobody is saying they should. If you wanted to use Uber or Lyft you could do it on an Android. Or they could let you do it from your browser.
It's the same thing with Fortnite. If Epic doesn't want to play by Apple's rules, then they don't get to be on iPhones. Does that mean Epic doesn't exist anymore? Does that mean that Epic can't make money any more? No, because Apple isn't a monopoly. You can play Fortnite on your PC, or on an Android, or on consoles, etc.
You people keep talking like Apple is a monopoly, when it isn't. If Apple DID control everything, and there were no alternatives, and they were playing dirty, then you would have an argument. But as it stands, they don't. If Apple decided they didn't want Uber or Lyft etc on their service, then that just increases the attractiveness of Android at Apple's expense. That is how competition works.


If you wanted to mod a card, and bought a car that you cannot mod, or even do an oil change, then that is on you for being a dumbass and not researching your purchase before hand. That car would be competition against cars where you can do all that stuff, and that is the whole point.
Do you think everyone with an IPhone realizes it's not really "their" phone? So all of those people are dumbasses, like you presume right? So you realize these people are just as smart as the dumbasses that assume everyone knows everything about their phone? You know, these users are doctors, scientists, researches, that have more knowledge than YOU? That's why they are currently in this predicament.

If you buy something, you technically should own that product. You shouldn't have small print that says otherwise. That's an asshole move.
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
152
230
I understand the fact that Windows represents the lion's share of the PC market. Yes, point given.

However, I still struggle to grapple with why the billion users on iOS is different to the billion users on Windows. I don't think anyone has, or will be able to satisfy that point of difference for me. Especially, considering what today's iOS and Android devices are capable of. Hell, even Apple's own marketing took aim at 'what's a computer?'' in their commercials suggesting the convergence of mobile and PC markets. I honestly believe Microsoft has a great argument to say they no longer have a monopoly, and that they currently only enjoy 23% of the converged market.

Yes, there is choice but the platform is just as dominant. You had a billion users locked away from choice at presale to just installing IE, which resulted in heavy fines and a mandate to open up the system to give users choice.

You have the exact same number of users locked away from choice to not only Safari, but Maps, Mail, Weather, Stocks, Health, etc. and most importantly a single store which reaps 30% from everything. Including competing services which Apple decides to throw their hat into now e.g. Music, TV/Movies and Game subscriptions.

"Dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn't prevent competition ... and does not harm consumers and innovation," EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said.
 

Sean Mirrsen

Member
Sep 30, 2020
218
379
270
Togliatti, Russian Federation
Imagine buying a badass car, and you wanna mod it even further. You buy the parts for the car, like coilovers, turbo, etc. Then your mechanic days there's no way to install these mods. Like at all. Imagine buying a device at full price, and being told you can't do x,y,z to said device. You can't even do an oil change yourself, even if you wanted to, because this manufacturer doesn't want you so DIY. Let's just vouch for this shitty company.
Okay, now imagine you're the average commuter who really needs a car. You need a car that works well, looks good, is comfortable, and has all the security bells and whistles. This car will be very important for your livelihood, and you have nothing in the way of skills besides driving it. So you want a car that is extremely reliable and known for security, even if it is expensive.

You won't care that you can't customize it, because that's not what you buy it for. You won't care that you can't repair it yourself, because you wouldn't know a gasket from a dust cover. And you're willing to spend the money to have a really good car that's known for being good and used by lots of other people.

There are people, and they're the majority of people, who want nothing to do customization and repairs. They just want something that is good and works. Apple, for all of its faults elsewhere, does provide a product that fits that description. It's not a product I would ever use, because I do value customization and repair ability. But I will concede that nearly everyone else I know, would prefer an Apple product (or an Apple-like product but cheaper :p) because they don't share my mindset.
 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Jul 15, 2020
3,408
8,633
745
Okay, now imagine you're the average commuter who really needs a car. You need a car that works well, looks good, is comfortable, and has all the security bells and whistles. This car will be very important for your livelihood, and you have nothing in the way of skills besides driving it. So you want a car that is extremely reliable and known for security, even if it is expensive.

You won't care that you can't customize it, because that's not what you buy it for. You won't care that you can't repair it yourself, because you wouldn't know a gasket from a dust cover. And you're willing to spend the money to have a really good car that's known for being good and used by lots of other people.

There are people, and they're the majority of people, who want nothing to do customization and repairs. They just want something that is good and works. Apple, for all of its faults elsewhere, does provide a product that fits that description. It's not a product I would ever use, because I do value customization and repair ability. But I will concede that nearly everyone else I know, would prefer an Apple product (or an Apple-like product but cheaper :p) because they don't share my mindset.
So take that car to a mechanic if it needs to be fixed. Oh wait you need to go to an apple authorized dealer, with exuberant prices. Great alternative. Oh wait, it's not an alternative or choice. It's the only option/choice thing they can do.

People get into accidents, yes? Same way they drop their phone. It may need repairs. Whoever is against repairs is stupid, especially if you need to facilitate repairs being anticonsumer, and you need to come into only Apple stores.
 

Sakura

Member
Feb 13, 2012
9,442
1,508
900
Fukuoka, Japan
Do you think everyone with an IPhone realizes it's not really "their" phone? So all of those people are dumbasses, like you presume right? So you realize these people are just as smart as the dumbasses that assume everyone knows everything about their phone? You know, these users are doctors, scientists, researches, that have more knowledge than YOU? That's why they are currently in this predicament.

If you buy something, you technically should own that product. You shouldn't have small print that says otherwise. That's an asshole move.
What are you talking about? Everybody knows before they buy an iPhone that they can't sideload apps or have all the same customizability as say an Android.
If you buy an iPhone, that is the product you are paying money for. If you don't like it, if afterwards you decide you want more freedom, if they were to go crazy and start removing all your favourite apps etc from the store, then just take your money elsewhere. It's what I'd do. It's a free market. They don't have a monopoly, so you do not have to buy an iPhone.
Same thing with your car example. If I was a dumbass who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a car without doing any research into it, just because it looked "badass", then I would just sell it and get a different one.
 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Jul 15, 2020
3,408
8,633
745
What are you talking about? Everybody knows before they buy an iPhone that they can't sideload apps or have all the same customizability as say an Android.
If you buy an iPhone, that is the product you are paying money for. If you don't like it, if afterwards you decide you want more freedom, if they were to go crazy and start removing all your favourite apps etc from the store, then just take your money elsewhere. It's what I'd do. It's a free market. They don't have a monopoly, so you do not have to buy an iPhone.
Same thing with your car example. If I was a dumbass who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a car without doing any research into it, just because it looked "badass", then I would just sell it and get a different one.
That sounds like something a dumbass would say. Not everyone with an IPhone knows these things, hence why they are in multiple lawsuits currently, all over the world. Only a dumbass would assume everyone should know you can't own a product, despite paying over a thousand.


I'm glad you keep using my car example, because no one in their right mind would be ok with having to spend more money to get something fixed, than being able to do it themselves. Especially if they are a mechanic themself. Imagine not being able to do a simple thing like a oil change, without rendering your vehicle useless by doing an oil change? Imagine being so stupid to actually support this kinda behavior?! Not everyone knows you can't do certain things with their IPhone, but they shouldn't be dumbasses to support this kinda behavior. It's anticonsumer. Anyone supporting this is a tool.
 
Last edited:

Sakura

Member
Feb 13, 2012
9,442
1,508
900
Fukuoka, Japan
I understand the fact that Windows represents the lion's share of the PC market. Yes, point given.

However, I still struggle to grapple with why the billion users on iOS is different to the billion users on Windows. I don't think anyone has, or will be able to satisfy that point of difference for me. Especially, considering what today's iOS and Android devices are capable of. Hell, even Apple's own marketing took aim at 'what's a computer?'' in their commercials suggesting the convergence of mobile and PC markets. I honestly believe Microsoft has a great argument to say they no longer have a monopoly, and that they currently only enjoy 23% of the converged market.

Yes, there is choice but the platform is just as dominant. You had a billion users locked away from choice at presale to just installing IE, which resulted in heavy fines and a mandate to open up the system to give users choice.

You have the exact same number of users locked away from choice to not only Safari, but Maps, Mail, Weather, Stocks, Health, etc. and most importantly a single store which reaps 30% from everything. Including competing services which Apple decides to throw their hat into now e.g. Music, TV/Movies and Game subscriptions.

"Dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn't prevent competition ... and does not harm consumers and innovation," EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said.
Because the billion of iOS users are there because they want to be there. Number of users is entirely irrelevant. People aren't choosing between having an iPhone or having no phone at all.
With Windows it is different. If you need a computer for school, or work, there is a good chance you HAVE to have Windows. Even for things like games. If you are lucky, maybe there will be Mac support as well. But otherwise, it isn't even a choice on your part. That is the difference between a monopoly, and something like the iPhone.

That sounds like something a dumbass would say. Not everyone with an IPhone knows these things, hence why they are in multiple lawsuits currently, all over the world. Only a dumbass would assume everyone should know you can't own a product, despite paying over a thousand.


I'm glad you keep using my car example, because no one in their right mind would be ok with having to spend more money on m to get something fixed, than being able to do it themselves. Especially if they are a mechanic themself. Imagine not being able to do a simple thing like a oil change, without rendering your vehicle useless by doing an oil change? Imagine being so stupid to actually support this kinda behavior?! Not everyone knows you can't do certain things with their IPhone, but they shouldn't be dumbasses to support this kinda behavior. It's anticonsumer. Anyone supporting this is a tool.
Yeah not every single person in the world knows that, because there are a lot of dumbasses out there.
Even if they found out after the fact that they can't do these things that they thought they should be able to do, they can just sell the fucking phone and get a different one. Nobody is forcing them to buy the iPhone, just like nobody is being forced to buy and keep your dumb car.
 

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
152
230
Because the billion of iOS users are there because they want to be there. Number of users is entirely irrelevant. People aren't choosing between having an iPhone or having no phone at all.
With Windows it is different. If you need a computer for school, or work, there is a good chance you HAVE to have Windows. Even for things like games. If you are lucky, maybe there will be Mac support as well. But otherwise, it isn't even a choice on your part. That is the difference between a monopoly, and something like the iPhone.


Yeah not every single person in the world knows that, because there are a lot of dumbasses out there.
Even if they found out after the fact that they can't do these things that they thought they should be able to do, they can just sell the fucking phone and get a different one. Nobody is forcing them to buy the iPhone, just like nobody is being forced to buy and keep your dumb car.
I vehemently disagree.
 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Jul 15, 2020
3,408
8,633
745
Because the billion of iOS users are there because they want to be there. Number of users is entirely irrelevant. People aren't choosing between having an iPhone or having no phone at all.
With Windows it is different. If you need a computer for school, or work, there is a good chance you HAVE to have Windows. Even for things like games. If you are lucky, maybe there will be Mac support as well. But otherwise, it isn't even a choice on your part. That is the difference between a monopoly, and something like the iPhone.


Yeah not every single person in the world knows that, because there are a lot of dumbasses out there.
Even if they found out after the fact that they can't do these things that they thought they should be able to do, they can just sell the fucking phone and get a different one. Nobody is forcing them to buy the iPhone, just like nobody is being forced to buy and keep your dumb car.
Do you not see how dumb your argument is? Just BUY a whole different product? Any other product can be repaired and doesn't purposely make their product non repairable, doesn't sue companies that make repairable items, and doesn't take down guides in the internet that show how to repair said item. Are you an apple employee by any chance? You seem to side with the dumbasses that retain this stupid logic, of lack thereof. I never understand the people that support anti consumerism, unless they actually work for the company. As matter a fact employees don't act this senseless, you'd have to be upper level to think this dumb. Are you upper level by any chance?