Fortnite

[Nicktendo]

If Epic Games want to forego Apple's cut for selling in their store, then good luck to them I say, they aren't going to win this one.

Apple's store - play by the rules or go play somewhere else.

Apple users value the security the company provides in their store and with how transactions are handled. 

If Epic wants to circumvent that, they can either build their own OS or encourage users to sideload on Android without the Play Store. 

I'm sure mums around the world are rejoicing at this news. I think it's pretty funny how big Epic's ego has become after the Tencent buy-in. All, of course, part of the plan of their Chinese paymasters I'm sure, try to and break up US big tech. Worth mentioning that Sony, MS and Nintendo also take 30% from Fortnite, but that's where a lot of Epic's V-bucks bread is buttered so you won't see them pulling this nonsense here. Mobile users are a tiny percentage of the overall PC / Console player base. This is a power play, and a pathetically obvious one at that. 

Fuck Epic and fuck Tencent. The CCP never plays by the rules and I hope they're told where to go in this lawsuit.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Nicktendo

[Ike]

Definitely seems deliberate given how fast they sued Apple and Google, despite they are the ones breaking the ToS, so they had to know it would happen. Apparently they had a big list of anti-competitive behaviour from Google which include blocking OnePlus from having the game pre-installed, which I agree with Google on that one (they also need to block Facebook's services from being pre-install but that's another issue).

[Will]

7 hours ago, bob said:

Yeah, not really sure who to side with here. All parties involved are pretty rich and greedy. 

I’d be tempted to say nobody, but Epic are probably the most bad of all of them. All they want is to move extra money to themselves, it’s nothing to do with customer choice.

7 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

Apple users value the security the company provides in their store and with how transactions are handled. 

I agree with that, but does that mean no other store should be allowed on the device? I’m pretty much an all-in Apple user, all my devices are Apple and pretty much all of my content it bought through it, but I wouldn’t be against other options being available. 

It’s funny, Fortnite is one of the better free to play games in that it’s not play to win and I think skins are fair game on the microtransactions. But Epic/Tencent are desperate to take as much of the money for themselves as possible. I’m not really sure which way any of this will go, but I do think it’s good to challenge some of these businesses every once in a while.

[Nicktendo]

1 minute ago, will' said:

I agree with that, but does that mean no other store should be allowed on the device? I’m pretty much an all-in Apple user, all my devices are Apple and pretty much all of my content it bought through it, but I wouldn’t be against other options being available. 

But why would Apple allow other companies to have a store on their own software and hardware? I see the argument compared to PCs all the time, but MS doesn't build PC hardware, only software. There's a reason Apple does the whole package - because it works better that way and they can guarantee security. If other companies want a slice of Apple's 1.4 billion customers, they need to be prepared to pay the Troll Toll. Try to get any Android phone (who are certainly much less restrictive than Apple, though also not great) to last for more than 18 months. Garbage battery life, slow OS and glitch after glitch, crash after crash are just some of the things you can look forward too.

The simplest metaphor I can think of this:
Epic Games (Tencent (The CCP)) are unhappy that they have to pay 30% to sell their goods in Apple's store. Even though they signed a contract and agreed to those terms when they started out, which is important, now they've decided that since they have a hot product, they can make even more money by demanding that Apple reduce their 30% cut or allow them to open their own store in Apple's store without paying Apple a penny. Apple, who own the biggest store in the centre of the city, which also happens to have the biggest foot-traffic, have said no, obviously. If you want access to our good location and our huge market, you need to pay your commission. Epic have thrown a hissy fit and decided to... sue Apple?? Ok. For what exactly? They knew the rules when they signed up. It's beyond stupid and is blatantly a power play designed at turning people against Apple and painting themselves as some sort of good guy company. 

Imagine going in to a real shop and telling the owner that you want to sell your products in it but the owner can't have any commission. Idiocy and an arrogance only a company backed by the world's most corrupting force would have. 

I see iPads with Fortnite are already being sold for massively inflated prices on eBay because of all this, which is hilarious. The game is absolute cancer, and so are it's financiers. Apple won't even notice the difference not having Fortnite on iOS. If Apple are so evil, why are MS, Sony and Nintendo charging 30% too? Should they allow other stores on their platforms? This is a load of bollocks and that stupid propaga promotional video that Epic released is just to rally up hate for Apple and turn the young generation against them, maybe until the new CHINA OS comes along in the future. Privacy not included. 

Apple is not a perfect company, far from it. They are just as vile and nefarious with regards to their tax payments. But their store policy is their store policy and was designed with the hardware and software in mind. 1.4 billion people apparently don't have enough of a problem with it for Apple to change their ways, and if they do, they can go buy an Android phone and hit Apple where it hurts. 

I find it even more funny that V-Bucks were $9.99 on iOS with Apple taking a 30% slice of the pie. So Epic's pricing to undercut them, was it $6.99? Naaaaah. It was $7.99 of course, so they were planning on making even more money. It's all about the consumer, ain't that right, Epic? 

I admit the mobile situation sucks quite hard overall, but I think that's looking at it through the lens of tech enthusiasts. I think most people are happy to make their choice between Google and Apple. Of course more freedom and choice would be better, but that came and went in the form of Windows Phone (RIP, my love) and other OSs that have disappeared over the past 10-15 years. A crowdfunded, completely open OS, would absolutely be a good thing for a small section of the phone market, but I think most people just want their phones to work correctly and function in a way they understand - Mr. A.V.E. Consumer doesn't care about how much money Apple and Android take from their stores. Epic could easily fund and build their own OS if they were actually interested in making more money, rather than just trying to get Apple and Google broken up. Instead the goal is to keep throwing Tencent's money at imaginary problems so they can get even more power in the tech space. 

[Will]

6 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

But why would Apple allow other companies to have a store on their own software and hardware? I see the argument compared to PCs all the time, but MS doesn't build PC hardware, only software. There's a reason Apple does the whole package - because it works better that way and they can guarantee security. If other companies want a slice of Apple's 1.4 billion customers, they need to be prepared to pay the Troll Toll. Try to get any Android phone (who are certainly much less restrictive than Apple, though also not great) to last for more than 18 months. Garbage battery life, slow OS and glitch after glitch, crash after crash are just some of the things you can look forward too.

The point they’re getting at is that these devices are people’s computers and they have absolutely no freedom to decide how they buy content for it. Apple have a huge monopoly on these users spending that almost certainly stifles competition.

If you buy a crappy Android phone then yeah, it will suck. If you buy one in the same price bracket as an iPhone you get a pretty decent device. It’s not really got all that much to do with the app stores available on it.

12 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

Imagine going in to a real shop and telling the owner that you want to sell your products in it but the owner can't have any commission. Idiocy and an arrogance only a company backed by the world's most corrupting force would have. 

I don’t think this is the correct analogy. It’s wanting to sell your product but there is only one shop in town that forces you to use their currency and will block you from any attempt to access the residents in any other way. They provide a really nice experience, but the customers also have no choice to go elsewhere if they want to. Epic are saying other people should be allowed to have a store that these people are free to choose to use should they wish to.

19 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

But their store policy is their store policy and was designed with the hardware and software in mind.

Which is completely fine, but their argument is that this shouldn’t be the one and only way people can access content.

24 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

I admit the mobile situation sucks quite hard overall, but I think that's looking at it through the lens of tech enthusiasts. I think most people are happy to make their choice between Google and Apple. Of course more freedom and choice would be better, but that came and went in the form of Windows Phone (RIP, my love) and other OSs that have disappeared over the past 10-15 years. A crowdfunded, completely open OS, would absolutely be a good thing for a small section of the phone market, but I think most people just want their phones to work correctly and function in a way they understand - Mr. A.V.E. Consumer doesn't care about how much money Apple and Android take from their stores.

If ultimately most people don’t care, but having additional choice would be a good thing overall, isn’t something like this a move in the right direction? Of course Apple and Google are not going to open this up on their own, but it doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.

[Nicktendo]

13 minutes ago, will' said:

The point they’re getting at is that these devices are people’s computers and they have absolutely no freedom to decide how they buy content for it. Apple have a huge monopoly on these users spending that almost certainly stifles competition.

If you buy a crappy Android phone then yeah, it will suck. If you buy one in the same price bracket as an iPhone you get a pretty decent device. It’s not really got all that much to do with the app stores available on it.

I don’t think this is the correct analogy. It’s wanting to sell your product but there is only one shop in town that forces you to use their currency and will block you from any attempt to access the residents in any other way. They provide a really nice experience, but the customers also have no choice to go elsewhere if they want to. Epic are saying other people should be allowed to have a store that these people are free to choose to use should they wish to.

Which is completely fine, but their argument is that this shouldn’t be the one and only way people can access content.

If ultimately most people don’t care, but having additional choice would be a good thing overall, isn’t something like this a move in the right direction? Of course Apple and Google are not going to open this up on their own, but it doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.

Apple stifle competition on their own devices, and why wouldn't they, it's their device! If companies don't like it, they should build their own OS. Apple didn't become powerful overnight, they did it by having a product that people wanted. The only reason Epic is butthurt is because they want more money.

There isn't one shop in town, there's Android, which I've already said, is more open to this sort of stuff. I don't see how people don't have a choice. People say they are "locked in to the ecosystem", but this is a myth. The can go to Android or another OS or a non-smartphone, if they want. But they won't get the same user experience. That's up to them. Convenience or a cheaper product (with many stores or no store at all, Nokia 3310, baby). I don't see why Apple need to change anything. It's their platform and people are free to choose whether they use it having considered all other options. 

I personally, wouldn't like Apple to have a secondary or third party store on their OS. I trust Apple with my data and credit card information (yeah, probably stupid, but better than 100s of companies having it) and if they made a move away from this, I'd personally reconsider owning their products. But that's just me. I see other people's point of view on this, and I don't think having a "duopoly" is necessarily a good thing, but I would argue that someone else needs to offer something better, rather than trying to break those that did it the best. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Nicktendo

[Will]

7 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

Apple stifle competition on their own devices, and why wouldn't they, it's their device! If companies don't like it, they should build their own OS. Apple didn't become powerful overnight, they did it by having a product that people wanted. The only reason Epic is butthurt is because they want more money.

I agree with what you’re saying, but these practices should still be examined to make sure they are consumer friendly.

7 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

There isn't one shop in town, there's Android, which I've already said, is more open to this sort of stuff. I don't see how people don't have a choice. People say they are "locked in to the ecosystem", but this is a myth. The can go to Android or another OS or a non-smartphone, if they want. But they won't get the same user experience. That's up to them. Convenience or a cheaper product (with many stores or no store at all, Nokia 3310, baby). I don't see why Apple need to change anything. It's their platform and people are free to choose whether they use it having considered all other options.

“All other options” isn’t exactly a huge amount of choice, and it assumes everyone has the spare cash to go out and buy a new device as well as transferring their content. Once you’re inside one of these ecosystems you can’t take anything out of it or move on. If you move from one to the other it’s not a smooth transfer and carry on, it’s a complete reset on how you use that type of device.

7 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

I personally, wouldn't like Apple to have a secondary or third party store on their OS. I trust Apple with my data and credit card information (yeah, probably stupid, but better than 100s of companies having it) and if they made a move away from this, I'd personally reconsider owning their products. But that's just me. I see other people's point of view on this, and I don't think having a "duopoly" is necessarily a good thing, but I would argue that someone else needs to offer something better, rather than trying to break those that did it the best. 

I don’t really understand your position here. In your last post you say “Of course more freedom and choice would be better” but here you’re saying that if it were to be offered to anybody you’d be so upset that you wouldn’t buy the products anymore. Lot’s of people would love to attempt to offer something better, that’s the whole point of this case. Apple doesn’t allow you to even try and that is the problem.

Situations like this are precisely why anti-trust laws exist, and they should be put to the test once in a while for the benefit of the consumer. Apple’s vertical integration through the entire sourcing, manufacturing, sales and after-support is pretty amazing, and are why it’s become so valuable. But it’s now of a such a size, with such far reaching integration through so many industries that nobody else can compete and consumer freedom is limited.

The case is pretty similar to the one against Microsoft and bundling of Internet Explorer. It even cites the same laws being contravened. Something like this has been brewing for a while, and it will be interesting to see where this goes.

[Nicktendo]

2 hours ago, will' said:

I agree with what you’re saying, but these practices should still be examined to make sure they are consumer friendly.

“All other options” isn’t exactly a huge amount of choice, and it assumes everyone has the spare cash to go out and buy a new device as well as transferring their content. Once you’re inside one of these ecosystems you can’t take anything out of it or move on. If you move from one to the other it’s not a smooth transfer and carry on, it’s a complete reset on how you use that type of device.

I don’t really understand your position here. In your last post you say “Of course more freedom and choice would be better” but here you’re saying that if it were to be offered to anybody you’d be so upset that you wouldn’t buy the products anymore. Lot’s of people would love to attempt to offer something better, that’s the whole point of this case. Apple doesn’t allow you to even try and that is the problem.

Situations like this are precisely why anti-trust laws exist, and they should be put to the test once in a while for the benefit of the consumer. Apple’s vertical integration through the entire sourcing, manufacturing, sales and after-support is pretty amazing, and are why it’s become so valuable. But it’s now of a such a size, with such far reaching integration through so many industries that nobody else can compete and consumer freedom is limited.

The case is pretty similar to the one against Microsoft and bundling of Internet Explorer. It even cites the same laws being contravened. Something like this has been brewing for a while, and it will be interesting to see where this goes.

“Upset” is not what I said. I said I would reconsider. It’s 2020 and China exists. Anyone who offers me good security and privacy for my data is going to get my money. 

As I’ve already mention, the way an Apple device is designed, both software and hardware, is done with this in mind. Allowing other companies access via a store is counter to this philosophy. Why the hell would they allow something that fundamentally goes against everything they’ve invested their money and R&D into? Do you think Epic don’t know that? This has nothing to do with Fortnite, it’s about forcing a fundamental change in their security or forcing them to lower their (industry standard) 30% cut. And this is why it’s not similar to having IE pre-installed on Windows. 

You’ve said Apple’s design philosophy is why they are so amazing and why they are so rich. Companies that do things well and create things that people want get to the top. I don’t see how punishing Apple in a way that forces them to alter their security is going to be good for them or the consumer who uses their products. 

I moved from Android to Apple a year and a half ago and there is absolutely no real difficulty in making such a move. There are even options to transfer all your pictures and contacts across with the click of a button. It’s as smooth a transfer as it needs to be for those two things. Also, it’s a one time move. Once it’s done, it’s done. But again, staying in an ecosystem is only convenience, it’s not a prison sentence. If you want out, you’re going to have to put in a little bit of work into redownloading apps and signing in to them all again. Anyone who wants to leave ANY ecosystem, will have to wrestle with that themselves and weigh up whether it’s worth it. If it’s not, then your principles aren’t strong enough. 
 

Competition, I believe, should not come inside Apple’s store or within iOS, it should come in the form of another OS. Vertical integration is why many people buy an iOS device. It is nowhere near as widely used as Android, but Apple don’t sell your data to make their phones cheaper. They are offering a product which is increasingly rare these days and actually values your data and security as something that’s not a money spinner. Android is the competition and the vast majority of the world’s smartphones are Android. There’s a reason a lot of people hate Apple, and use the “too much profit” and “too big” argument as an excuse. It is no coincidence in my view that China, the biggest abuser of personal data and privacy in the world, would try to launch such an attack on Apple. 

How is consumer freedom limited, given that people have a choice between Apple and Android? Given that for people that have concerns about either of these companies, they can buy a phone with a different OS (they do exist) or not buy a smartphone at all? A smartphone is not a right. No one has to have one, even if having one makes life much easier. Choice still exists in terms of price and OS. I’ve already agreed that it would be better to have more choice in terms of OS, but that it shouldn’t be done by cutting down the big two or creating inconveniences for their existing happy customers. 

[Will]

12 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

“Upset” is not what I said. I said I would reconsider. It’s 2020 and China exists. Anyone who offers me good security and privacy for my data is going to get my money. 

I wasn’t directly quoting you on that but fair enough. I just don’t understand why the addition of consumer freedom to choose stores would push you to reconsider using the store you currently have no issue with?

14 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

As I’ve already mention, the way an Apple device is designed, both software and hardware, is done with this in mind. Allowing other companies access via a store is counter to this philosophy. Why the hell would they allow something that fundamentally goes against everything they’ve invested their money and R&D into? Do you think Epic don’t know that? This has nothing to do with Fortnite, it’s about forcing a fundamental change in their security or forcing them to lower their (industry standard) 30% cut. And this is why it’s not similar to having IE pre-installed on Windows. 

 

It’s the way the iPhone and iOS is designed. On my Mac I can freely choose where to get my software from. Either through the App Store or anywhere else - what’s the difference with that?

I totally agree Apple wouldn’t change that by choice, that’s exactly what a case like this needs to investigate it.

You’re right, it’s not about Fortnite, it’s a much bigger industry and consumer freedom issue. I don’t really understand your point about IE, why is it not similar?

18 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

You’ve said Apple’s design philosophy is why they are so amazing and why they are so rich. Companies that do things well and create things that people want get to the top. I don’t see how punishing Apple in a way that forces them to alter their security is going to be good for them or the consumer who uses their products. 

The argument is pretty clear that it’s about allowing consumer choice rather than punishing a company. What is best for Apple will not always be best for the consumer, and that is the very point of this. Apple has become so big and controlling of everything people do that it may not be fair anymore. Why does this suddenly become a security issue?

22 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

I moved from Android to Apple a year and a half ago and there is absolutely no real difficulty in making such a move. There are even options to transfer all your pictures and contacts across with the click of a button. It’s as smooth a transfer as it needs to be for those two things. Also, it’s a one time move. Once it’s done, it’s done. But again, staying in an ecosystem is only convenience, it’s not a prison sentence. If you want out, you’re going to have to put in a little bit of work into redownloading apps and signing in to them all again. Anyone who wants to leave ANY ecosystem, will have to wrestle with that themselves and weigh up whether it’s worth it. If it’s not, then your principles aren’t strong enough. 

To be totally honest this isn’t an area I’m totally an expert on but when I say transition I mean transfer of everything you do on the device, all purchases, all content, etc. etc. That’s great you can transfer pictures and contacts but what about everything else? Of course there will be some effort involved, but I’d say with Apple it’s at the point where everything is so integrated it’s VERY difficult to do so.

50 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

Competition, I believe, should not come inside Apple’s store or within iOS, it should come in the form of another OS. Vertical integration is why many people buy an iOS device. It is nowhere near as widely used as Android, but Apple don’t sell your data to make their phones cheaper. They are offering a product which is increasingly rare these days and actually values your data and security as something that’s not a money spinner. Android is the competition and the vast majority of the world’s smartphones are Android. There’s a reason a lot of people hate Apple, and use the “too much profit” and “too big” argument as an excuse. It is no coincidence in my view that China, the biggest abuser of personal data and privacy in the world, would try to launch such an attack on Apple. 

I think it’s a fair opinion that the competition is between the two ecosystems but clearly not everyone agrees with that. Like you say, nobody is going to offer to remove their control, so isn’t it a good thing to put it to the test in an official way?

I totally agree with your comments on data privacy, and I definitely see it as a positive for Apple devices, I just don’t really see it’s relevance to this situation?

54 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

How is consumer freedom limited, given that people have a choice between Apple and Android? Given that for people that have concerns about either of these companies, they can buy a phone with a different OS (they do exist) or not buy a smartphone at all? A smartphone is not a right. No one has to have one, even if having one makes life much easier. Choice still exists in terms of price and OS. I’ve already agreed that it would be better to have more choice in terms of OS, but that it shouldn’t be done by cutting down the big two or creating inconveniences for their existing happy customers.

Isn’t the answer to this in your question? When consumer choice is limited to two options, which you can’t freely move between that is not a lot of choice. Of course a smartphone isn’t a right, but that doesn’t mean consumers should be limited in how they use them or the choice offered to them.

I don’t really get your final point, why is offering more choice to consumers who want it inconveniencing those who don’t? It’s also not about cutting down Apple or Google, just making the market fairer than it is. Of course more competition will impact them, but that’s exactly why they don’t want to open anything up and something like this is a welcome test of whether they truly are acting in a fair way towards the consumer.

[Nicktendo]

39 minutes ago, will' said:

I wasn’t directly quoting you on that but fair enough. I just don’t understand why the addition of consumer freedom to choose stores would push you to reconsider using the store you currently have no issue with?

It’s the way the iPhone and iOS is designed. On my Mac I can freely choose where to get my software from. Either through the App Store or anywhere else - what’s the difference with that?

I totally agree Apple wouldn’t change that by choice, that’s exactly what a case like this needs to investigate it.

You’re right, it’s not about Fortnite, it’s a much bigger industry and consumer freedom issue. I don’t really understand your point about IE, why is it not similar?

The argument is pretty clear that it’s about allowing consumer choice rather than punishing a company. What is best for Apple will not always be best for the consumer, and that is the very point of this. Apple has become so big and controlling of everything people do that it may not be fair anymore. Why does this suddenly become a security issue?

To be totally honest this isn’t an area I’m totally an expert on but when I say transition I mean transfer of everything you do on the device, all purchases, all content, etc. etc. That’s great you can transfer pictures and contacts but what about everything else? Of course there will be some effort involved, but I’d say with Apple it’s at the point where everything is so integrated it’s VERY difficult to do so.

I think it’s a fair opinion that the competition is between the two ecosystems but clearly not everyone agrees with that. Like you say, nobody is going to offer to remove their control, so isn’t it a good thing to put it to the test in an official way?

I totally agree with your comments on data privacy, and I definitely see it as a positive for Apple devices, I just don’t really see it’s relevance to this situation?

Isn’t the answer to this in your question? When consumer choice is limited to two options, which you can’t freely move between that is not a lot of choice. Of course a smartphone isn’t a right, but that doesn’t mean consumers should be limited in how they use them or the choice offered to them.

I don’t really get your final point, why is offering more choice to consumers who want it inconveniencing those who don’t? It’s also not about cutting down Apple or Google, just making the market fairer than it is. Of course more competition will impact them, but that’s exactly why they don’t want to open anything up and something like this is a welcome test of whether they truly are acting in a fair way towards the consumer.

All payments made in the App Store go through Apple directly. My point in this discussion is that having a second store or third-party payments would upset that balance and pose a risk to how secure their systems are. That's why I don't think they should allow other companies access at an OS level. Touch ID and Face ID are security systems implemented at OS level, via both hardware (Apple's processors) and software (iOS) to prevent other companies having access to your CC information, and also keep your data extremely safe - the safest in the entire industry. By allowing others access, those systems are immediately at risk. It's central to the design philosophy of iOS, and one which I appreciate massively as an end-user. So it's really not as simple as just allowing more competition. What you're asking them to do is basically give up what they've spent billions of dollars and many millions man-hours investing in. People have more freedom (including different stores and the ability to sideload whatever app they want) on Android. So if that's what they want, they should buy an Android phone, but that obviously makes you more vulnerable to hacks and other nasty stuff. People had a choice for years with different OSs, and the world moved to Android and iOS. Competition existed and people made a choice. Windows didn't push their OS enough and it was missing too many apps to make a dent in the success of Android and iOS. I remember Instagram wasn't there for years and people got annoyed by it, and this certainly wasn't limited to Insta.

The difference with Macs is that the hardware is not always developed in-house (yet). They still use Intel chips in a variety of products. Though that is slowly changing with Face / Touch ID being implemented in MacBooks and iMacs and the new MacBooks using Apple's own A12/A13 processors which have the security implemented in the chip. I expect that stuff will really change once MacOS and iOS gradually merge into one, which is likely the plan. In 5-10 years, I would say you probably won't be able to install third party apps on Mac outside of the App Store. The iPad Pro is already essentially a fast decent MacBook and it doesn't allow third party stores. Even though I don't own a Mac, I expect over the next few years that will become a more valuable to the security-concerned end-user, and I would be interested in getting one down the line for work. 

Apple could be more consumer friendly, of course they could, but I don't think allowing others access to their security is the way to do it. I think Epic understands that, which is why we're seeing this lawsuit, and why it was unquestionably planned with their marketing video ready to go minutes after they announced the lawsuit. 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Nicktendo

[Will]

2 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

All payments made in the App Store go through Apple directly. My point in this discussion is that having a second store or third-party payments would upset that balance and pose a risk to how secure their systems are. That's why I don't think they should allow other companies access at an OS level. Touch ID and Face ID are security systems implemented at OS level, via both hardware (Apple's processors) and software (iOS) to prevent other companies having access to your CC information, and also keep your data extremely safe - the safest in the entire industry. By allowing others access, those systems are immediately at risk. It's central to the design philosophy of iOS, and one which I appreciate massively as an end-user. So it's really not as simple as just allowing more competition. What you're asking them to do is basically give up what they've spent billions of dollars and many millions man-hours investing in. People have more freedom (including different stores and the ability to sideload whatever app they want) on Android. So if that's what they want, they should buy an Android phone. 

I still don’t really understand where you’re making these connections. Why would other stores upset this balance? There is no argument that Apple need to open everything up any way that other people choose with no consideration for security, it’s merely the argument that Apple has an unfair monopoly and other stores being available to consumers would be a good thing.

Face ID and Touch ID are already available to other apps, I use them to log in on websites and apps all the time, they contain Apple Pay information that I use for things not on the App Store daily. They are not arguing that these systems need to be made available to every person that wants to make a store, but even if they were that functionality already exists so can’t be too much of a security concern?

Why should consumers only have two choices? The security argument in this sense really doesn’t hold much water.

8 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

The difference with Macs is that the hardware is not always developed in-house (yet). They still use Intel chips in a variety of products. Though that is slowly changing with Face / Touch ID being implemented in MacBooks and iMacs and the new MacBooks using Apple's own A12/A13 processors which have the security implemented in the chip. I expect that stuff will really change once MacOS and iOS gradually merge into one, which is likely the plan. In 5-10 years, I would say you probably won't be able to install third party apps on Mac outside of the App Store. The iPad Pro is already essentially a fast decent MacBook and it doesn't allow third party stores. Even though I don't own a Mac, I expect over the next few years that will become a more valuable to the security-concerned end-user, and I would be interested in getting one down the line for work. 

But why does that make any difference? Why is Touch ID at risk from third party stores on iOS but completely fine with it on a Mac? I’d definitely take you up on a bet that the Mac won’t allow outside apps in 5-10 years time.

11 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

Apple could be more consumer friendly, of course they could, but I don't think allowing others access to their security is the way to do it. I think Epic understands that, which is why we're seeing this lawsuit, and why it was unquestionably planned with their marketing video ready to go minutes after they announced the lawsuit.

It goes back to what I’ve already said, but there is no argument about security, those are things being added outside of any case being brought by Epic against Apple. 

[Nicktendo]

 

[Will]

That’s a decent video in parts. He glosses over a lot of stuff but I think it’s worth a watch for those who don’t have any experience in reading and understanding legal documents like this. It would have been nice if he’d covered some of the finer points and properly got into the crux of Epic’s argument that only having one store to access all those people that is totally controlled by the platform holder may not be a completely fair practice. On the other hand the detail on the specific laws was pretty good, and showed how hard it will be to ‘prove’ anything about the claim.

I still stand by my overall opinion that this is a good thing to test out. While I have no issues with Apple or the walled garden approach on a personal level, I don’t quite see how there is such a need to control iOS but not the Mac, though I doubt that would in any way that would be relevant as this is a case about their iOS users specifically and selling things to them.

Ultimately it will boil down to  whether the completely integrated approach stifles competition and whether Apple should be compelled to open up parts of that market. Personally I don’t think it is, but I would like to see them ease some of the rules of the App Store with regards to how content can be packaged and distributed.

[Nicktendo]

3 minutes ago, will' said:

That’s a decent video in parts. He glosses over a lot of stuff but I think it’s worth a watch for those who don’t have any experience in reading and understanding legal documents like this. It would have been nice if he’d covered some of the finer points and properly got into the crux of Epic’s argument that only having one store to access all those people that is totally controlled by the platform holder may not be a completely fair practice. On the other hand the detail on the specific laws was pretty good, and showed how hard it will be to ‘prove’ anything about the claim.

I still stand by my overall opinion that this is a good thing to test out. While I have no issues with Apple or the walled garden approach on a personal level, I don’t quite see how there is such a need to control iOS but not the Mac, though I doubt that would in any way that would be relevant as this is a case about their iOS users specifically and selling things to them.

Ultimately it will boil down to  whether the completely integrated approach stifles competition and whether Apple should be compelled to open up parts of that market. Personally I don’t think it is, but I would like to see them ease some of the rules of the App Store with regards to how content can be packaged and distributed.

The one about Google is also on his channel and it seems Epic have a slightly better case against Google, but still an extremely long shot. Worth a watch if you have time. It’s also revealed in that video (according to Epic) that Apple phones constitute less than 25% of the global phone market. So it is in no way the “monopoly” they are trying to present it as. 

It’s clearer now why the Epic Game Store charges 12.5% compared to 30% across the industry. It was all part of the plan. Ironically, games are not cheaper on the EGS, and outside the “free” games Epic pays for to give away to people, the consumer doesn’t win. This is all ridiculously shady.

[Julius]

I don't know what exactly I expected the outcome of all of this to be, but it was certainly something along these lines. 

 

[Nicktendo]

1 hour ago, Julius said:

I don't know what exactly I expected the outcome of all of this to be, but it was certainly something along these lines. 

 

Good.
 

Sweeney is pure garbage. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Nicktendo

[Rummy]

Doubt anyone else will be following by a curiosity in the case may arise from one of the US House Committe's recently released reports(~450pages I'll hopefully read through it this week) into Digital/Big Tech and Market Competition/Monopolisation. I'll quote from the chair's foreword;

Quote

Over the course of our investigation, we collected extensive evidence from these companies as  well as from third parties—totaling nearly 1.3 million documents. We held seven hearings to review  the effects of market power online—including on the free and diverse press, innovation, and privacy— and a final hearing to examine potential solutions to concerns identified during the investigation and to  inform this Report’s recommendations.

A year after initiating the investigation, we received testimony from the Chief Executive  Officers of the investigated companies: Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai.  For nearly six hours, we pressed for answers about their business practices, including about evidence  concerning the extent to which they have exploited, entrenched, and expanded their power over digital  markets in anticompetitive and abusive ways. Their answers were often evasive and non-responsive,  raising fresh questions about whether they believe they are beyond the reach of democratic oversight.

Although these four corporations differ in important ways, studying their business practices has  revealed common problems. First, each platform now serves as a gatekeeper over a key channel of  distribution. By controlling access to markets, these giants can pick winners and losers throughout our  economy. They not only wield tremendous power, but they also abuse it by charging exorbitant fees,  imposing oppressive contract terms, and extracting valuable data from the people and businesses that  rely on them. Second, each platform uses its gatekeeper position to maintain its market power. By  controlling the infrastructure of the digital age, they have surveilled other businesses to identify potential rivals, and have ultimately bought out, copied, or cut off their competitive threats. And, finally, these firms have abused their role as intermediaries to further entrench and expand their dominance. Whether through self-preferencing, predatory pricing, or exclusionary conduct, the  dominant platforms have exploited their power in order to become even more dominant.

To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the  status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Although these firms have delivered clear benefits to society, the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google has come at a price. These firms typically run the marketplace while also competing in it—a position that enables them to write one set of rules for others, while they play by another, or to engage in a form of their own private quasi regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. 

The effects of this significant and durable market power are costly. The Subcommittee’s series  of hearings produced significant evidence that these firms wield their dominance in ways that erode  entrepreneurship, degrade Americans’ privacy online, and undermine the vibrancy of the free and  diverse press. The result is less innovation, fewer choices for consumers, and a weakened democracy.

Nearly a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: “We must make our  choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we  cannot have both.” Those words speak to us with great urgency today. 

Although we do not expect that all of our Members will agree on every finding and recommendation identified in this Report, we firmly believe that the totality of the evidence produced during this investigation demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform. These firms have too much power, and that power must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. Our economy and democracy are at stake.

As a charter of economic liberty, the antitrust laws are the backbone of open and fair markets. When confronted by powerful monopolies over the past century—be it the railroad tycoons and oil barons or Ma Bell and Microsoft—Congress has acted to ensure that no dominant firm captures and holds undue control over our economy or our democracy. We face similar challenges today.  Congress—not the courts, agencies, or private companies enacted the antitrust laws, and Congress  must lead the path forward to modernize them for the economy of today, as well as tomorrow. Our  laws must be updated to ensure that our economy remains vibrant and open in the digital age. 

Congress must also ensure that the antitrust agencies aggressively and fairly enforce the law.  Over the course of the investigation, the Subcommittee uncovered evidence that the antitrust agencies failed, at key occasions, to stop monopolists from rolling up their competitors and failed to protect the  American people from abuses of monopoly power. Forceful agency action is critical.

Lastly, Congress must revive its tradition of robust oversight over the antitrust laws and  increased market concentration in our economy. In prior Congresses, the Subcommittee routinely  examined these concerns in accordance with its constitutional mandate to conduct oversight and perform its legislative duties. As a 1950 report from the then-named Subcommittee on the Study of  Monopoly Power described its mandate: “It is the province of this subcommittee to investigate factors  which tend to eliminate competition, strengthen monopolies, injure small business, or promote undue concentration of economic power; to ascertain the facts, and to make recommendations based on those  findings.”

Google US house/commitee antitrust digital competition or so atm you'll get the media articles and their takes but should also get links to the primary source document in question for anyone interested.

[bob]

In one of the weirdest crossovers ever - Kelsier from the Mistborn book trilogy is being added to Fortnite???

Apparently the author Brando Sando is good friends with someone at Epic Games, and so he made it happen.

What's next? Paul Atreides in Minecraft? Captain Ahab in Smash?

[Julius]

8 minutes ago, bob said:

In one of the weirdest crossovers ever - Kelsier from the Mistborn book trilogy is being added to Fortnite???

I laughed so hard when I saw this. I know Mistborn is big in its genre and the world of fiction, and I guess there are more people into "nerd culture" than ever before, but is Mistborn really Fortnite character material? 

Well, apparently so 

9 minutes ago, bob said:

What's next? Paul Atreides in Minecraft? Captain Ahab in Smash?

Okay but in all seriousness, they are 1000% bringing Paul Atreides into this when Dune releases.

Makes me wonder who else they could bring in now that we seem to be delving into things that I would consider popular in their medium but not necessarily of worldwide renown. It's a shame Bandai Namco has seemingly every anime and manga tied down, or else we could see some pretty crazy stuff! 

[Julius]

The madness never ends. 

The Prancing Horse is coming to Fortnite in some weird capacity. Look forward to seeing my electric toothbrush turn up next 

 

[Julius]

We're in the cursed timeline. Can't believe they got Naruto before Dragon Ball.