Epic says Apple has blocked Fortnite's App Store submission - game now offline worldwide on iOS

[spam joe]

No matter how one feels about Apple... it's a bizarre judgement, imo.

If I open a store, let's say a real physical store, and I sell goods... a court can just order me to let another company come into my physical store, set up shop, and sell their goods? And not even pay me for it?

How about letting businesses run their own business? If people don't like it, then they can go invest bajillions into developing their own products and stores. Let the market decide.

 

[HardReset]

No matter how one feels about Apple... it's a bizarre judgement, imo.

If I open a store, let's say a real physical store, and I sell goods... a court can just order me to let another company come into my physical store, set up shop, and sell their goods? And not even pay me for it?

How about letting businesses run their own business? If people don't like it, then they can go invest bajillions into developing their own products and stores. Let the market decide.

Bad logic. Apple just decides they are only one that can sell "goods" for phones they manufacture. Epic games have store but they cannot sell Fortnite because Apple doesn't like it.

Epic has their own store but Apple just decides they want share from what Epic sells. Like setting your own store and then you must pay 30% from every purchase to another company. Let the market decide, yeah.

 

[m4a4]

Which is why we should reserve judgment until AFTER we hear from them...

Well, looks like Apple is just being the ***hole here as I predicted. They're ignoring the app submission because they want to wait until after the 9th Circuit Court rules on their stay request. Which now has the courts asking why, since they're going against the court's order.

 

[spam joe]

Bad logic. Apple just decides they are only one that can sell "goods" for phones they manufacture. Epic games have store but they cannot sell Fortnite because Apple doesn't like it.

Epic has their own store but Apple just decides they want share from what Epic sells. Like setting your own store and then you must pay 30% from every purchase to another company. Let the market decide, yeah.

Ok, yeah, I guess I misunderstood the issue.

In that case, let's say I open a store (physical or web). Like Costco, for example. I sell a physical card that's required to shop at my store. It would be like the court saying, nope you've got to let that card be used to shop at other stores too.

But, let's forget that and say then I add some functionality to the card. Maybe I can play simple games like tic-tac-toe on it that my company develops and that can be purchased through my store. Am I forced at this point to let other companies develop software for my card and sell their stuff independently?

Okay, then I decide to let let other companies sell their games for my card through my store. But I take a cut. After all, the card is MY product, and we need to make sure that the card stays secure. Now, suddenly, I'm doing something illegal because other companies want to be able to install their software on my card outside of my ecosystem and not pay my cut?

I simply don't see how a third party should have any say, whatsoever, on what gets installed on MY product, or how the pricing works.

If this goes through, I should be able to install my own apps on major manufacturers' smart TVs without charge and sell my own TV content through those apps without any charge to me. Have my own channel, for free.

 

[HardReset]

Ok, yeah, I guess I misunderstood the issue.

In that case, let's say I open a store (physical or web). Like Costco, for example. I sell a physical card that's required to shop at my store. It would be like the court saying, nope you've got to let that card be used to shop at other stores too.

But, let's forget that and say then I add some functionality to the card. Maybe I can play simple games like tic-tac-toe on it that my company develops and that can be purchased through my store. Am I forced at this point to let other companies develop software for my card and sell their stuff independently?

Okay, then I decide to let let other companies sell their games for my card through my store. But I take a cut. After all, the card is MY product, and we need to make sure that the card stays secure. Now, suddenly, I'm doing something illegal because other companies want to be able to install their software on my card outside of my ecosystem and not pay my cut?

I simply don't see how a third party should have any say, whatsoever, on what gets installed on MY product, or how the pricing works.

If this goes through, I should be able to install my own apps on major manufacturers' smart TVs without charge and sell my own TV content through those apps without any charge to me. Have my own channel, for free.

Again you must understand that everything changes when antitrust laws come into play. Antitrust laws aim to prevent too powerful companies doing harm on consumers. And that's exactly what this Apple vs Epic thing is all about.

In other words, when it comes to antitrust laws, normal so called "logic" no longer apply. And so don't bother to make any examples when forgetting that antitrust thing.

 

[spam joe]

Hmm. Is Apple causing harm here? It seems to me that consumers truly have a choice and this game developer is trying to bully its way into making Apple open up their device to its software and end-run Apple having any control or profit from it. No matter what the "bigger reason", it isn't right when you think about what is happening here... and it sets precedent. So now I should be able to sue all TV manufacturers to let me put my own app on their TVs for free, even if my app is simply garbage.

So what happens when we all have proprietary neural chips then. Software developers can then sue and say "You have to let me put my software on your chip! Even I'm skirting the policies/rules you've put in place for third-party software!"

I feel like the court is causing harm on this one, not Apple. And I don't even like Apple.

 

[HardReset]

Hmm. Is Apple causing harm here? It seems to me that consumers truly have a choice and this game developer is trying to bully its way into making Apple open up their device to its software and end-run Apple having any control or profit from it. No matter what the "bigger reason", it isn't right when you think about what is happening here... and it sets precedent. So now I should be able to sue all TV manufacturers to let me put my own app on their TVs for free, even if my app is simply garbage.

So what happens when we all have proprietary neural chips then. Software developers can then sue and say "You have to let me put my software on your chip! Even I'm skirting the policies/rules you've put in place for third-party software!"

I feel like the court is causing harm on this one, not Apple. And I don't even like Apple.

How consumers have a choice? It's very evident Apple is trying to take choices from Epic games. And before you even begin to say people Can buy Android device, well, at the moment yes. But Google can just stop supporting Android at any time and then consumers have choices like, what?

Neural chip manufacturers can decine that chip is not for sale. They may decide to use them only for internal use and that is OK. In this case Apple opens store for "basically" everyone but in fact tries to restrict some customers for not doing things Apple don't like. Apple can decide not to offer any kind of store for software. But when Apple does that, then regulations soon come into place.