What I'm saying is that Apple dosen't own you anything. Giving warranty or not is up to the manufacturer, be it of cars or phones. We would be in a dictatorship if companies were forced to give things like that, assuming they are not giving you a faulty product. That's where competition comes in, and that's why products and services gets better/cheaper. You should be responsible for your own actions be it dropping your phone and it breaking, and yes, risking not paying for assurance and getting your phone stolen.

If the product isn`t faulty then the warranty don`t even get used. Warranty is basically calculated on a statistical hypothesis of how many products will fail before a certain timeline. The average for durable products is one year, in Brazil by law if I`m not wrong is 3 months. Unless it is a hidden defect that you can`t see from regular use, that would make the warranty coverage basically indefinitive (for manufacturing defects of course). I don`t remember iPhones getting cheaper.

If it was against the law, Apple wouldn't be able to sell products there, dear Don. But since I know as a fact that Apple can indeed sell phones there, your either lying or just plain mistaken.Well yes, if the car is faulty from the manufacturing, of course the manufacturer is responsible. But that's not what we were discussing was it? It was about charging not the final customer, but rather other companies, to be able to use the syustem that they keep, develop and gives tons of assurances(like stability, fraud assurance, etc).For a car the final customer is responsible for it, assuming it isn't faulty. For platforms(the OS) the manufacturer itself is responsible for it. You may not like it, but that's how it works

A lot of contracts are against law. If they weren`t companies wouldn`t ever lose a claim. The fact that most customers don`t care and don`t prosecute keeps they doing that but doesn`t change that they are breaking the law. Just like parking lots here say they aren`t responsible for whatever is inside the car, but if your car is stolen, damage or just what is inside is stolen they would still be responsible. Same as any contract that contains illegal claims, it is just null.

You don't really know what monopoly means, do you? Well, I think that closes that discussion.

Yes I do, but you seem to not understand that monopolistic practices aren`t only from a company that own much over 50% of the marketshare. If you have a company that have 25% of the market and let`s say the second biggest is no higher than 5%, that company do hold much more power than all others and can in fact employ monopolistic practices to squeze the other companies like you guess forcing lower prices for suppliers, higher price for customers, dumping to force other companies to close, forcing exclusivity sourcing deals.

Regarding the other part: Yeah, Google and some other companies do different. So what? Apple chooses to do different, and it works. It's not wether you like it or not. If it were up to me, I wouldn't want to pay 1 cent. But it isn't about me or you. And Apple is really sucessful, which means that people are largely okay with it.

The fact that a lot of people accept it doesn`t make it moral, right or legal.

I don't want poor trilionare Apple to have more rights. I want their current rights respected, just as I want our current rights respected. It's easy to defend something when it's favorable to you, isn't it? But if it were the other way around, it becomes way harder. I'm just being honest to myself.

This isn`t in my favor or against me. I have gone away from iPhone, never put a cent on any app or in-app purchase. My wife have bought some apps for our children though. And sorry but as far as I know there is no law that would allow them to keep their system closed, reason why they lost lawsuit against jailbreak from what I remember.

And yeah, that's why I always try to buy physical, because i don't fully trust what a contract says or in a company with no face. That's why you all need to put your money where your mouth is. Want to support ownership? Buy physical. Or at least don't support Stadia.

So if companies decide that your physical copy won`t work without the internet you wouldn`t have any problem since that is their right, right?

How much does Fortnite cost again? $0?

So the "fair" deal is that Apple and Google provide huge platforms for Epic, but Epic is the only company that is supposed to profit from it?

Fairness stops when you become a megacorporation that rakes in billions every month by not paying taxes and using their market domination to keep others out of the market. And considering that those companies do indeed still make billions in profit I would say things have been extremely fair for them. One might even say they have unfair advantages that need to be checked once in a while. So your fairness card doesn't really work here.

Saying that Apple and Google do not profit from big games on their platforms is simply wrong. Or else they wouldn't allow F2P games on their platforms in the first place.

Looks like you forgot that Epic is a big corporation itself, even one that expects the companies that use their very own Epic Games Store to pay royalties to them.

Your second paragraph is a plain strawman argument. I guess the intent with your entire post was to one-up kirby's trolling in this thread.

pardon? quite sure they make enough money on hardware and services to not charge 30% as does google.

while epic does smear apple here the idea behind it it great in theory.
suppose the cut goes to 15% that means devs get 15% more for the same amount of sales wich is good for the dev or if devs are chads give a discount

EDIT not saying epic is great but just saying NO because they tend to be scum aswell doesn't remove the fact that they have a darn good point:
 we need more options as consumers

Lol...

I don't et what is happening here.

So the issue here now is who wants to make more money? Is it apples fault that they have done well for themselves in other areas? mind you, I actually hate apple,I do not have a single apple product. But this whole thing is simple, if you have a platform, you have a right to charge whatever you to anyone that is using your platform. If they don't like it, then they can move along.

I don't see anyone complaining about the 30% steam ALSO takes from sales on its platform (even though they usually end up with more than that).

But here is the real kicker, Epic decides to cut out the middle man, but yet keep prices of the MTX items the same. Doesn't that mean the only reason they are doing this is so they make more for themselves? 

Lets call it what it is here, there's nothing noble or good about what Epic is doing here. I don't care what they wanna charge for their game or how, but it's simple if they want to tap into the reach platforms like iOS, Google play, PSN, XBL...etc offers, then you should be willing to pay for that. The same way a retailer gets a cut simply from selling your products. But if you want to cut them out? Then by all means you should be willing to go it all on your own.

You don't cut them out then take them to court when they cut you off their platform too lol.

But on the pc platform you can make an alternative to steam...