By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Apple removes Fortnite from app store, cant connect to servers. Epic Games Sues.

kirby007 said:

jezus rol if i even saw a shit analogy from you its gotta be this one, compareable with the example that was used that MS could charge for every steam sale made on windows

Microsoft doesn't make PCs, so your example isn't the same thing.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
kirby007 said:

jezus rol if i even saw a shit analogy from you its gotta be this one, compareable with the example that was used that MS could charge for every steam sale made on windows

Microsoft doesn't make PCs, so your example isn't the same thing.

so every manufacturing brand should get 30% on any sale made on their PC?



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

padib said:
RolStoppable said:

Making such an argument is bound to look stupid when the premise is false to begin with. No amount of layers on top of this core is going to cover up how delusional Epic is.

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.

My problem with this is that there's literally not a single person that's "forced to use their platform". Even if you "had" to have a phone there are other options than getting an Apple one.

Plus I know you're talking about the US government and I don't know how it is over there, but as a Brit I know the UK government wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were to criticise Apple for this since they're much worse when it comes to monopolies (TVs), have no competition unlike Apple, and will send you to jail if you don't pay them while Apple won't/can't do anything if you don't pay them.

I don't really see how this Apple winning would make things worse for consumers though. It would just maintain the status quo, no? Apple would still get their 30% cut, just like they always have. The competition would be pretty much unaffected either way too, so why would things be worse?



Ka-pi96 said:

My problem with this is that there's literally not a single person that's "forced to use their platform". Even if you "had" to have a phone there are other options than getting an Apple one.

Plus I know you're talking about the US government and I don't know how it is over there, but as a Brit I know the UK government wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were to criticise Apple for this since they're much worse when it comes to monopolies (TVs), have no competition unlike Apple, and will send you to jail if you don't pay them while Apple won't/can't do anything if you don't pay them.

I don't really see how this Apple winning would make things worse for consumers though. It would just maintain the status quo, no? Apple would still get their 30% cut, just like they always have. The competition would be pretty much unaffected either way too, so why would things be worse?

The way it works is by marketshare. Suppose a company has 100% marketshare and they dictate all the rules, then people would have no choice but to bend to those rules. That's what a monopoly is. So your government would actually have a leg to stand on depending on Apple's marketshare of smart OSs in the United Kingdom.



padib said:
Ka-pi96 said:

My problem with this is that there's literally not a single person that's "forced to use their platform". Even if you "had" to have a phone there are other options than getting an Apple one.

Plus I know you're talking about the US government and I don't know how it is over there, but as a Brit I know the UK government wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were to criticise Apple for this since they're much worse when it comes to monopolies (TVs), have no competition unlike Apple, and will send you to jail if you don't pay them while Apple won't/can't do anything if you don't pay them.

I don't really see how this Apple winning would make things worse for consumers though. It would just maintain the status quo, no? Apple would still get their 30% cut, just like they always have. The competition would be pretty much unaffected either way too, so why would things be worse?

The way it works is by marketshare. Suppose a company has 100% marketshare and they dictate all the rules, then people would have no choice but to bend to those rules. That's what a monopoly is. So your government would actually have a leg to stand on depending on Apple's marketshare of smart OSs in the United Kingdom.

Not really. My point was that the government has an enforced monopoly on 100% of the TV market and makes everybody give them money from it. So if they were to criticise Apple in any way, regardless of their marketshare, then they'd be massive hypocrites. Plus I'm sure Apple's marketshare would be quite a bit less than 100%.



Around the Network
kirby007 said:
RolStoppable said:

Microsoft doesn't make PCs, so your example isn't the same thing.

so every manufacturing brand should get 30% on any sale made on their PC?

30% on any game sale if they make both the hardware and the software (read: the OS).



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Ka-pi96 said:
padib said:

The way it works is by marketshare. Suppose a company has 100% marketshare and they dictate all the rules, then people would have no choice but to bend to those rules. That's what a monopoly is. So your government would actually have a leg to stand on depending on Apple's marketshare of smart OSs in the United Kingdom.

Not really. My point was that the government has an enforced monopoly on 100% of the TV market and makes everybody give them money from it. So if they were to criticise Apple in any way, regardless of their marketshare, then they'd be massive hypocrites. Plus I'm sure Apple's marketshare would be quite a bit less than 100%.

Fact is that on the iOS environment the apple app store is the only option (thus a 100% marketshare on iOS) for 1. downloads and 2. payments in apps ( unless the app opens safari for you and refers you towards a website for iDeal or whatever payment system )



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

RolStoppable said:
kirby007 said:

so every manufacturing brand should get 30% on any sale made on their PC?

30% on any game sale if they make both the hardware and the software (read: the OS).

i fail to see how that stands vs only having developed the OS, aside from the idea that we are comfortable ( used ) with.
its time for change



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Ka-pi96 said:

Not really. My point was that the government has an enforced monopoly on 100% of the TV market and makes everybody give them money from it. So if they were to criticise Apple in any way, regardless of their marketshare, then they'd be massive hypocrites. Plus I'm sure Apple's marketshare would be quite a bit less than 100%.

I understand better now, but I don't think the law works against the government unless people protest. So hypocrites or not, the government has its code that it may or may not apply to itself and that happens everywhere since the dawn of time.



kirby007 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Not really. My point was that the government has an enforced monopoly on 100% of the TV market and makes everybody give them money from it. So if they were to criticise Apple in any way, regardless of their marketshare, then they'd be massive hypocrites. Plus I'm sure Apple's marketshare would be quite a bit less than 100%.

Fact is that on the iOS environment the apple app store is the only option (thus a 100% marketshare on iOS) for 1. downloads and 2. payments in apps ( unless the app opens safari for you and refers you towards a website for iDeal or whatever payment system )

I was criticising a monopoly over an entire industry. Apple's is still only a monopoly over a single product.

The former is definitely worse than the latter.