AsGryffynn said:
padib said:
Apple is monopolistic, of that there is no doubt.
The problem is that this case gives Apple more ground to behave how it already does.
Apple is no saint, but Epic is handing them legitimacy on a silver platter. No one company should have so much control over the usage of software over such a large portion of the population, and be allowed to enforce such strict rules that gauge money out of those forced to use their platform, and forces competition out of the race.
There's an issue with Apple, the government is already on the case of all big IT companies (there was a hearing at the beginning of the month). This case with Epic is just making things worse for consumers, because in the end it just means we pay more and more goes into Apple's pockets and, over the long run, we have less options due to less competition.
|
How does this logic even work? Why would a case against Apple make them more legitimate? Regardless of the reason, that 30% cut is wrong and indefensible.
|
That's the way the legal system works. If Apple wins in this case, that case becomes an authority. So, if another team comes with a case, apple will say "In Epic Games v. Apple (or w/e) it was ruled that the App Store is not a monopoly". Then the other side has the additional burden of demonstrating why this case is different and that ruling shouldn't apply.
Apple's cut btw is 30%, but drops to 15% for subscriptions longer than a year.
