Epic says Apple ‘has no rights to the fruits of Epic’s labor’ in latest filing • Hacker News Board

Re: Epic says Apple ‘has no rights to the fruits of Epic’s labor’ in latest filing

#41

Post by cercatrova » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #38

cercatrova wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said this on another comment, it's disingenuous to say that just because it was bad before that it's not bad now. Apple really shouldn't charge 30 percent for doing basically nothing except gate keeping.

They do more than gatekeeping and aren't the only ones doing 30%.

You seem biased in favor of Apple. Why is that?

> aren't the only ones doing 30%.

Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Re: Epic says Apple ‘has no rights to the fruits of Epic’s labor’ in latest filing

#42

Post by pjmlp » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #41

pjmlp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do more than gatekeeping and aren't the only ones doing 30%.

You seem biased in favor of Apple. Why is that? > aren't the only ones doing 30%. Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Because I am no hippie pointing the finger to the man and they are entitled to their business.

Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.

Re: Epic says Apple ‘has no rights to the fruits of Epic’s labor’ in latest filing

#43

Post by cercatrova » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #42

cercatrova wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem biased in favor of Apple. Why is that? > aren't the only ones doing 30%. Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Because I am no hippie pointing the finger to the man and they are entitled to their business. Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.

If there are only two sellers of mobile apps, you can't just "give your money to someone else" because no one else exists. That's the essence of antitrust, whether it be monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. I'd agree with you if there were a free market of device OSes and app stores, but a market of only two is fundamentally unfree.

Re: Epic says Apple ‘has no rights to the fruits of Epic’s labor’ in latest filing

#44

Post by pjmlp » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 6:48 AM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #43

pjmlp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I am no hippie pointing the finger to the man and they are entitled to their business. Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.

If there are only two sellers of mobile apps, you can't just "give your money to someone else" because no one else exists. That's the essence of antitrust, whether it be monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. I'd agree with you if there were a free market of device OSes and app stores, but a market of only two is fundamentally unfree.

If there are two, there is someone else, basic English grammar rules here.

Then there are feature phones like those Nokias with KaiOS, Jolla, Tizen,... be the change you want the world to become, instead of giving the money and then feeling entitled to something it wasn't available right from the start.