301–310 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if by ideological reasons you mean „moneyz“.
It is easy to be cynical because cynical is usually correct but that really isn’t Sweeny’s motivation here.
I really don't understand how people still think it is Sweeny's ideology playing here, when he literally emailed Apple for an exception for Epic alone.
Epic took a stand and we should be behind them 100%. This case was never about winning on the letter of the contract law, it was about moving the standard of practice and attempting to gain some ground against the evils of mega-Apple. If you are reading this Grubber post and thinking you agree, that's only because you are used to thinking this way by now. The courts simply do not understand the power companies like A…
> Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal. I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for developers; far more than they get credit for, in my opinion. For that reason, I think the best option is for them to unbundle their app store developer offerings into pieces tha…
I think the interesting question is not whether enormous monopolistic trillion-dollar corporations provide value to consumers. They clearly must provide some value or they wouldn't exist at all.
The real question is how much more value would consumers have in an alternate world where these anti-competitive practices were prohibited and these oligopolies were broken up into smaller competing companies?
Without a crystal ball, we can't answer that question with certainty, but we have to make educated guesses in order to have good judgement about the right way to govern the market.
That makes sense. Why would you do business ever again with someone who intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you? After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead, they: - Reject the offer - Carry on smearing you - Lose the court case - Sweeney says they wouldn’t release iO…
The problem with this logic, is that Apple isn't really a "business" in this case. Epic and Apple aren't really "business partners". Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has. You can sue the Post Office, lose your case, and know they can't retaliate by stealing all your mail forever. You can sue the Department o…
Just stop using Apple devices. They're not the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do Epic's games benefit users in meaningful ways over any of the other non-exploitative games on the App Store?
Why does that matter? What does "meaningful ways" even mean? And "meaningful ways" according to who, the user or Apple?
Epic partners with Tencent in China for games. Tencent sells a "gamer phone", the Black Shark.[1] 90Hz display, liquid cooled. All Epic needs to do is offer that in the US. With a bit of marketing effort, Epic could make their phone the one the cool middle school kids want. Instead of one of those slow Apple old-people phones.
[1] https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/03/tencent-black-shark-3-an...
Epic took a stand and we should be behind them 100%. This case was never about winning on the letter of the contract law, it was about moving the standard of practice and attempting to gain some ground against the evils of mega-Apple. If you are reading this Grubber post and thinking you agree, that's only because you are used to thinking this way by now. The courts simply do not understand the power companies like A…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fortnite will be blacklisted from the Apple ecosystem until the exhaustion of all court appeals" It's not about sticking it to them. It's to increase the cost of their appeals and pressure them to drop the case.
That sounds like "sticking it to them" to me. The alternative is that Apple lets them back on, stops paying for an expensive lawsuit, and gets extra revenue from fortnite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> simply reciting tired anti-trust That's the judge's job. They're not supposed to come up with novel solutions, they're supposed to apply the relevant case law.
A judge makes judgements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your post would hold up if the court didn’t already decide that Apple is not, in fact, a monopoly. The market in the lawsuit was defined as “digital mobile game transactions” https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/09/10/epic-v-apple.pdf
The court made that decision under the existing legal framework. That does not mean, nor even imply, that the existing legal framework is fair & just nor that it has kept up with modern structures.