61–70 of 996 posts
Apple doesn’t get 30% when retailers sell iTunes gift cards.
But they do once the consumer spends that gift card. So charing 30% for the gift card would sort of be charging the Apple tax twice, wouldn't it?
Epic should sell iTunes gift cards.
You buy an Xbox or a playstation, and it's a game playing machine. It just plays video games.
You buy a mobile phone. And it's a general computing device.
It's very much arguable that it's necessary for modern life.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If you sue me, and go out of your way to publically attack me, I'm not willing to do business with you until it's settled, if ever again.
But can you be banned from doing business with millions of other people for offending the gatekeeper?
Should anybody be able to post anything they want on HN or YouTube or Facebook etc.? They can't.
Does Epic allow anyone to sell content for Fortnite without giving Epic any money? They don't.
This clearly and unambiguously crosses the line into abuse of market power. Apple's actions before? Maybe? Sort of? Apple needed that 30 percent cut to monitor for fraud and quality or something, going above-and-beyond other payment processors. This? This has absolutely no basis in anything. It's simple retaliation designed to kneecap Epic from Apple's dominant control of a market. Apple can refuse to let Epic releas…
> Apple needed that 30 percent cut to monitor for fraud and quality or something, going above-and-beyond other payment processors. How much do Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Gog and etc. take from publishers on their stores?
Epic's antitrust case against Apple is very weak, but they're well within the right to sue Apple to resolve their dispute. The developer agreement actually stipulates the venue, Northern District of California, for any lawsuits. However, Epic demonstrated particularly bad faith in how they've dealt with this matter so I'm not surprised that Apple is terminating their relationship (which they're allowed to do under th…
Winning such a case based on complaining its an antitrust violation is rather quixotic and normally only a government would do this.
Maybe in the end both relent and the rate goes down, but I don't think Epic wants to pay anything and still be available.
Is it bad that I hope they do kill Epic's account? Epic launches a preconceived plan with media attacks and the most ridiculous 1984 reference that actually doesn't make sense in the current context against Apple. If I'm Apple, even if this is a straight up attack on me, I just follow the rules in my TOS and block them like I do others who don't follow the TOS. If you don't like the TOS, fine you don't have to be on…
To be fair, it's a reference to Apple's own ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
This clearly and unambiguously crosses the line into abuse of market power. Apple's actions before? Maybe? Sort of? Apple needed that 30 percent cut to monitor for fraud and quality or something, going above-and-beyond other payment processors. This? This has absolutely no basis in anything. It's simple retaliation designed to kneecap Epic from Apple's dominant control of a market. Apple can refuse to let Epic releas…
Companies shouldn't be allowed to fire customers that blatantly break rules the customer agreed to?
Imagine if Microsoft "fired" Adobe and as a result nobody could install Photoshop on Windows anymore.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If you sue me, and go out of your way to publically attack me, I'm not willing to do business with you until it's settled, if ever again.
But can you be banned from doing business with millions of other people for offending the gatekeeper?