ThrashZoneHi,
Did you forget microsoft.

Valantarsawing off your legs to combat athlete's foot.

“The Court finds that with respect to Epic Games’ motion as to its games, including Fortnite, Epic Games has not yet demonstrated irreparable harm. The current predicament appears of its own making,” Rogers wrote, saying that Epic “strategically chose to breach its agreements with Apple” and thus disturb the status quo.

AquinusMeh. Apple has done some stuff wrong, but I think that it's going to be a huge stretch to convict Apple on antitrust grounds. Epic has avoided tying Apple's actions back to other companies that do the same thing and there is a valid concern about what such a ruling would do to companies like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. Personally, I think Epic is playing with fire. I don't think this is a battle they're going to win.


www.theverge.com/2020/8/25/21400240/epic-apple-ruling-unreal-engine-fortnite-temporary-restraining-order

ValantarWell, there is an argument to be made around the difference between general/broad purpose computing devices such as phones, tablets and computers in comparison to (mostly) single-purpose ones like game consoles (yes, you can stream video and music or even browse the web on consoles, but those are relatively niche use cases). Given actual real-world use its difficult to argue that phones aren't pocket computers, and this could be seen as different from something like a console, which in the vast majority of cases will be used for gameplay. So the platform monopolies of console holders have some more arguments going for them than platform monopolies on broad-puropose computing devices. There's also an argument for disallowing built-in monopolies on devices with a sufficient market share/market penetration, as at some point you then reach a threshold for it being an actual monopoly, or at least gaining the power to act as one. Does that mean that Apple will be convicted? Unlikely imo.

AquinusI think it's a hard case to make when Apple really isn't doing anything different than Steam or Google. It seems more likely to me that Epic is just upset that Apple's terms require them to give up a slice of in game sales. Regardless of how you look at it, somebody is being greedy. However, it is Epic who decided to violate that contract. As the quote I posted said, Epic did this to themselves. That's a hard place to fight back from. I also think that part of getting Steam's sale numbers were to prove that Apple doesn't have as much of a monopoly on the market as Epic is claiming.

FatalfuryApple,Google,Valve....
They 30% Leecher Companies..
they're all the same

evernessince1. No one is forcing you to use steam. Apple and Google force you to use their store on their devices
2. Steam's cut is tiered
3. Steam takes a 0% cut of any sales of steam keys on any other store (like greenmangaming for example) so steam actually encourages competition. So in fact if you don't want to pay fees, don't sell your steam keys on the steam store. Sell them literally wherever you want if you think you can do a better job than steam. Clearly a lot of developers feel it's worth paying that cut though given the number of games up for sale.

Do your homework before posting, they are nothing like steam.

japkoslavWell talk about a rotten apple with this update and lack of technical knowledge on the part of the court in general.

1. Valve does compete in the mobile space, Steam app, Steam Link, and Underlords with various other future products not yet released.
2. Valve's game data is relevant because the scope of this trial is beyond mobile, the scope is the entire gaming industry distrubtuion platforms as well as all auxiliary distribution platforms. Distribution platforms take a cut out of every game sold on their platform. This data is well known and is practiced by Epic as well.
3. Epic's argument that they should have their own store on Apple's platform is ridiculous. Apple has a platform they have developed, and consumers are willingly purchasing to use the platform knowing it is walled in. Consumers are willingly purchasing Xbox consoles knowing they are walled in.

FatalfuryApple,Google,Valve....
They 30% Leecher Companies..
they're all the same

Valve also notes that it is not a public company, and Apple's request for sales and earnings figures are illogical.

RavenasBefore stating this - I am a fan of Valve and everything that they do. With that being said, Valve is incorrect in their defense of producing this data.

1. Valve does compete in the mobile space, Steam app, Steam Link, and Underlords with various other future products not yet released.
2. Valve's game data is relevant because the scope of this trial is beyond mobile, the scope is the entire gaming industry distrubtuion platforms as well as all auxiliary distribution platforms. Distribution platforms take a cut out of every game sold on their platform. This data is well known and is practiced by Epic as well.
3. Epic's argument that they should have their own store on Apple's platform is ridiculous. Apple has a platform they have developed, and consumers are willingly purchasing to use the platform knowing it is walled in. Consumers are willingly purchasing Xbox consoles knowing they are walled in.

The argument Epic has is ridiculous in the fact that they are arguing to be able to provide consumers with direct payments so Epic can generate more profits from their work but are offering no true benefit to the customer while telling customers they should be on board with the lawsuit. Meanwhile, they have a platform that I would call in development on PC practicing the same exact distribution cuts, but they are saintly because they went ahead and took 10% rather than 30% industry standard. Give me a break.

Epic will suffer a huge loss in this. Epic wants all the "fruits" of Apple's development and customer base, without any of the work involved.

Sources:
Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard - IGN
Microsoft Supports Epic Against Apple While Charging 30% in Its Store | gamepressure.com
Epic’s battle for “open platforms” ignores consoles’ massive closed market | Ars Technica



Leecher companies that developed the platform that these other companies are able to exist on? Epic hasn't developed a phone a platform in the hands of a billion users that enables their game to exist on a mobile platform through worldwide distribution. I guess the Epic 10% distribution cut isn't defined as leeching, rather giving back to the poor? How Robinhood of them...

RavenasBefore stating this - I am a fan of Valve and everything that they do. With that being said, Valve is incorrect in their defense of producing this data.

1. Valve does compete in the mobile space, Steam app, Steam Link, and Underlords with various other future products not yet released.
2. Valve's game data is relevant because the scope of this trial is beyond mobile, the scope is the entire gaming industry distrubtuion platforms as well as all auxiliary distribution platforms. Distribution platforms take a cut out of every game sold on their platform. This data is well known and is practiced by Epic as well.
3. Epic's argument that they should have their own store on Apple's platform is ridiculous. Apple has a platform they have developed, and consumers are willingly purchasing to use the platform knowing it is walled in. Consumers are willingly purchasing Xbox consoles knowing they are walled in.

The argument Epic has is ridiculous in the fact that they are arguing to be able to provide consumers with direct payments so Epic can generate more profits from their work but are offering no true benefit to the customer while telling customers they should be on board with the lawsuit. Meanwhile, they have a platform that I would call in development on PC practicing the same exact distribution cuts, but they are saintly because they went ahead and took 10% rather than 30% industry standard. Give me a break.

Epic will suffer a huge loss in this. Epic wants all the "fruits" of Apple's development and customer base, without any of the work involved.

japkoslavGoogle does not really force you to use Google Store since they allow side loading and other stores to function on Android (like Amazon appstore, Humble Bundle etc.).
Either way Google might be forced in the future to include other stores APK in their Google Store.

Valantar1: Those are some blatant false equivalencies. The Steam mobile app does not sell games for the platform it is used on, only PC/Mac/Linux. Steam Link is a desktop streaming app and has no relation to app stores or games distribution. It's more akin to PS Remote Play, Xbox' mobile streaming app, and remote desktop applications.
2: The scope of this is not the entire game industry and games distribution platforms. The scope is whether Apple has the right to wall off a general computation platform to only accept applications from a single source. It is both broader and more specific than what you're saying. Epic's argument isn't directly related to games, they just happen to be a games developer bringing this suit on the basis on a game. It could be any other piece of software without changing the arguments.
3: As I've argued for previously in this thread, single-purpose computation platforms like game consoles are fundamentally incomparable to general-purpose computation platforms like PCs and smartphones, and arguing as if both are the same is thus problematic. There are clearly arguments to be made towards whether Sony or MS has the right to wall off game distribution for their consoles, but this is a fundamentally different issue than walling off all software distribution to a general-purpose device as integrated into a user's life as a smartphone.

I agree that Epic's stance here is fundamentally selfish, but Apple's arguments are also complete nonsense. Android has allowed competing app stores for many years, yet have none of the issues Apple claim will come to pass if they are forced to allow this. Apple is making up arguments purely to avoid losing (some of their) profits, even if they know that >99% of users will still get all their apps and content from the App Store and iTunes - because apple makes billions and billions of dollars on their egregious 30% cuts there (and yes, a 30% cut is equally egregious no matter who charges it, and it's great that we are seeing movement towards lower cuts, which is largely attributable to Epic).

RavenasI appreciate your response, but I want to reply only to a fraction of it in regard to scope of the lawsuit. The lawsuit is in fact Epic vs. Apple, but the precedent set by the lawsuit is the actual scope I am speaking of. If the judge rules in favor of Epic, the entire landscape of software distribution and retail sales will experience lawsuits almost immediately.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers says quoted:

"
There's some measure of a lack of competition and high barriers to market entry. That said, there appears to be evidence that everyone that uses these kind of platforms to sell games is charging 30%. Whether Epic likes it, the industry and not just Apple seem to be charging that. Right now, Epic is paying Apple nothing. Epic itself charges third parties. This battle won't be won or lost on a TRO, and Apple has a reputation of going the distance so it's not surprising they acted the way they did here, but like I said, they overreached.
"

The above quote references the following picture:



Epic is not going to achieve a win through this type of lawsuit because judges don't want to be in this type of judicial territory.

Epic is going to possibly achieve a win through lobbying lawmakers to regulate (which likely won't happen either because the lawmakers receive more money from companies other than Epic), and they already realize this lawsuit isn't going to work for them. See below the path now charted by Epic:

Epic Games behind anti-Apple App Store legislation in North Dakota | AppleInsider
Epic Stopped From Pursuing Apple in the U.K. Over Fortnite Ban - Bloomberg
UPDATE 4-Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint (yahoo.com)

ValantarNone of that changes the simple fact that you can't directly compare a general-purpose compute platform (PC, Mac, Android, iOS) to a single-purpose one (Playstation, Xbox) even if these are extremely similar in terms of hardware. Nor does it take away from the fact that Steam - which is primarily a Windows application, 95% of users (and likely more than that of sales) on Windows - is entirely incomparable to the iOS app store through being a software distribution platform running on an open platform with no relation to the platform owner, while the App Store is owned and controlled by iOS owner Apple, and is the only legal way of installing applications on those devices. Consoles would be a better comparison there, but again, those are fundamentally different through being single-purpose machines. We have at least three distinct classes of device platform+software ecosystem here (general/closed (iOS), general/open (Windows, Linux, MacOS, arguably Android) and single-purpose/closed (Xbox, Playstation). If making comparisons across, the fundamental differences need to be accounted for, otherwise the comparison is invalidated.

RavenasThe fact that the Judge compared them all, does directly compare them all in this case. Which is why Valve has been subpoenaed and the Judge has allowed it.