A New Wrinkle in the Epic/Apple Battle

Yoused said:
A big difference between Amazon and a company like Epic is that Amazon sells you stuff, while an Epic sells you phantasms. There was a story of a teenager who wiped out her parents' life savings trading abstract nothings with friends and strangers. I believe that, if Apple is sort of in its way working to throttle abstract extravagance, that could be a net positive.
Click to expand...
Crypto and Stock are kinda abstract....
 
quarkysg said:
It always amases me that folks nowadays felt so entitled that they have to dictate a private business’ business model and pass moral judgement on what they felt is wrong even tho. no wrongdoing have been committed.
Click to expand...

On one hand, what is "wrongdoing" can evolve. It's part of the social contract. An example of this is understanding the tragedy of the commons when it comes to things like water and land resources and adjusting what folks are allowed to do based on what we learn (EPA). I don't think we've got a good grip on how that plays out in the technology era when assets are increasingly digital, eroding previous concepts of ownership more and more, copying, etc.

On the other, I generally would agree that arbitrarily dictating a business model is not useful. Businesses work better in stable environments where the rules are clear, and when we can (generally) agree on the social contract.

Yoused said:
A big difference between Amazon and a company like Epic is that Amazon sells you stuff, while an Epic sells you phantasms. There was a story of a teenager who wiped out her parents' life savings trading abstract nothings with friends and strangers. I believe that, if Apple is sort of in its way working to throttle abstract extravagance, that could be a net positive.
Click to expand...

There's certainly something to be discussed about how to approach behaviors that rely on the same sort of tricks that casinos use to "hunt whales", and how that should play out. But it's kinda worse than you suggest here. In the case of many of these games, not only is there nothing you can trade as the developer "owns" the digital nothings you paid money for and they aren't necessarily incentivized to allow the trading, but the money spent goes into what amounts to a digital slot machine.
 
Nycturne said:
I just don't know how you'd interact with the iOS/Mac/etc window manager, GPU, or whatever without using Apple SDKs. This is a weird statement in my mind.
Click to expand...

You're right, but there's a lot more to the provided frameworks than the window manager. A modern platform includes massive amounts of code to do a lot of things previous generation developers would have had to do themselves.

I'm not saying I have the solution, but I do think that modern platforms give the developer a huge amount of things "for free", as opposed to the bad old days (dos, amiga, early macOS) where you basically got an application loader that provided window dressing and that's basically IT.


Also, while the Epic/Apple thing is going down, nobody seems to care about Sony/Nintendo and their control of their console platforms.
 
throAU said:
Also, while the Epic/Apple thing is going down, nobody seems to care about Sony/Nintendo and their control of their console platforms.
Click to expand...
I think people care. I'm more curious as to how it would work out. In the other forum I mentioned that MS is open to third party stores on Xbox, but think that they would in turn just use Windows instead of making the existing xboxOS open (since Windows is already open it would be less work for them). The real concern would be, whether or not consoles would go up in price (and by how much) if they are unable to use the razor blade model.

I think if Nintendo were forced to allow third party stores, it may not matter as much because people buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo games and we know they won't sell their games in a third party store. Though I'd expect the hardware to go up in price, same with Sony.
 
diamond.g said:
I think people care. I'm more curious as to how it would work out. In the other forum I mentioned that MS is open to third party stores on Xbox, but think that they would in turn just use Windows instead of making the existing xboxOS open (since Windows is already open it would be less work for them). The real concern would be, whether or not consoles would go up in price (and by how much) if they are unable to use the razor blade model.

I think if Nintendo were forced to allow third party stores, it may not matter as much because people buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo games and we know they won't sell their games in a third party store. Though I'd expect the hardware to go up in price, same with Sony.
Click to expand...
It’s not fair that Nintendo won’t sell Zelda for my iPad. I demand that Europe remedy this immediately.
 
Certain folks need to understand that antitrust doesn’t mean: “to ensue low prices for consumers”. It’s about ensuring fair competition among merchants and producers; but even then there are arguments to be made. The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking the winners and losers in the market.
 
And it should be blindingly obvious to anyone breathing that Apple’s devices; especially the iPhone is the most direct link to money-paying consumers the likes of which other companies only dream of. And Apple built that up slowly and methodically. Remember, they were always the company that was about to go out of business—any day now. They were the runt. Now because they’re successful the government and some envious users and politicians want to turn Apple’s model into just another Android environment? There’s a reason people choose iPhone over the cesspools that any number of android vendors offer, and the disparity and uncertainty that comes along with that.

Apple’s environment offers many eyeballs, and there’s great value in that.
 
throAU said:
You're right, but there's a lot more to the provided frameworks than the window manager. A modern platform includes massive amounts of code to do a lot of things previous generation developers would have had to do themselves.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure. But the UI layer is one of those things you can’t just “reverse engineer” your way around, hence using it as the example.
 
diamond.g said:
Haha. Nintendo could just say they don't do digital sales and revert back to selling carts.
Click to expand...
No. The cartridge business model is unfair to Ninento’s competitors. That can no longer be allowed. All games must be available for all devices electronically from any and all stores. It’s only fair.
 
Cmaier said:
No. The cartridge business model is unfair to Ninento’s competitors. That can no longer be allowed. All games must be available for all devices electronically from any and all stores. It’s only fair.
Click to expand...

It's only unfair if you don't have to blow the dust out of them. :ROFLMAO:

Kids today have no idea of what we had to go through. ;)
 
Cmaier said:
No. The cartridge business model is unfair to Ninento’s competitors. That can no longer be allowed. All games must be available for all devices electronically from any and all stores. It’s only fair.
Click to expand...
😂
I guess the next step is to say they have to make games?
 
And it should be blindingly obvious to anyone breathing, that Apple’s devices—especially the iPhone— is the most direct link to money-paying consumers the likes of which other companies only dream of. That’s a lot of eyeballs.

Apple built their platform up slowly and methodically. Remember, they were always the company that was about to go out of business—any day now. They were the runt and now the government is seeking to turn them into another android option. There’s a reason why people choose Apple devices and it’s the same reason why people opt for their choice of beer or restaurant. In fact, people seem to like their Apple kit more than a lot of other options they may consider fungible. And unlike other platforms (like the utter cesspool that’s Android) Apple kit more or less “just works”. To be clear, Apple never prevented any other company from attempting to reproduce their successes. One only needs to look at the disparate fragmented mess that Android, and there’s plenty to choose from. That’s not Apple’s fault, that’s on all those other wana-be companies attempting to replicate what Apple does (re: user experience) and failing. Apple isn’t preventing anyone from migrating to or opting for another platform. Proof? Apple is a smaller percentage of the world wide “smartphone” market. We’ve been told this for many many years now how “Android is the dominant mobile OS”. The Department of (Social) Justice, can’t have it both ways. Now suddenly iOS (and by extension, Apple) is now the dominant, anticompetitive option? BSz

That Apple’s platform is the most sticky, most popular and most sought after is a lot different from “Apple is exploiting monopoly power”. If our brilliant politicians were so concerned about “lock in” they’d be going after Microsoft simply because there are so many end-users and companies reliant on so much legacy software, processes, workflows and control software based on Windows systems and software it’s insane. Companies find it difficult to migrate to other solutions so they’ll live with the devil they know. Okay for Microsoft, but not for Apple? Ridiculous.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, I don’t want the government dictating what software and systems I use; especially when it comes to security, encryption and privacy. In fact, the more I think about it, this entire antitrust case is probably seen as a great opportunity for the government to get Apple to scream “uncle” when it comes to encryption, security and privacy. Apple should never give in. This whole case is a joke and I’m sure it’ll get to the SCOTUS where DoSJ will be embarrassed.
 
Dada_dave… When compared to brick-and-mortar retail stores (especially supermarkets), Apple’s 15% or 30% is an utter dream for vendors looking to peddle wares and products. Colgate/Palmolive and P&G are huge and they compete fiercely for bid-on slots in every retail location they can. Thats how it should be. Where I live in the North East ShipRite is the top dog in the market region and they dictate the terms and what products get the exposure. How many products (I mean truly different products) does a company like Epic actually produce? Why should they get to free ride and get all the eyeballs and exposure? I can guarantee you if the retail companies offered flat rates like 15% and 30% these vendors would jump just for the shelf-space exposure on a brick-and-mortar store alone. It greatly simplifies the whole process of getting products to the shelf. It should be no different for digital since there’s vastly more instantaneous exposure.

The other thing is, I don’t see the government mandating that these software developers MUST offer their wares NATIVE on all of Apple’s platforms. Why not? There’s a whole sh*t-ton of high-end software that just isn’t available on Apple’s kit unless you run something like Parallels or Fusion. The DoSJ’s case is beyond flawed.
 
I’m sure companies like Epic can find better terms and greater success peddling their wares on any number of other platforms that exist on Android. Certainly Windows brings them plenty of $$$. Why so desperate for Apple and Apple’s platforms and ecosystems? Hell, they’re free to offer side-loading on other platforms if they wish.

No, Epic and other software vendors like them, want to free-ride. They want not only the exposure and reach of Apple’s massive install base, they want access to the “Apple Customer”. So it’s not just the exposure and reach that’s of great value. It’s also the QUALITY of the demographic, the Apple Customer willing to actually pay $$$. People who would rather pay for a great product and great experience *REGARDLESS* of price. It’s why Android is a giant toxic cesspool. Sure it has a greater install base and offers vastly more options all competing with each other. Plenty of bottom feeders. But the people using these other platforms (and they are numerous) based on and around Android just aren’t the same quality of money-paying customer. That’s not Apple’s fault. There’s more than enough competition in the mobile market; that Apple’s kit stands out is a testament to how competition is supposed to work. The trouble is they all got religion in 2007 and thought they could simply copy Apple. Hilarious that they haven’t figured it out yet. Competing is hard, and it should be. Maybe if these companies actually put in the hard work and actually innovated instead of trying to mimic and copy, they’d fair better. Whatever the case, there’s PLENTY of options for consumers, right down to getting *free* devices. Why is it Apple’s responsibility to ensure their competitors succeed? And I wasn’t aware that Epic competes with Apple. Epic wants to free-ride that much is obvious. Maybe Epic should develop their own devices and platforms (🤷).

Again, it’s the Apple Customer that Epic wants access to. That Apple’s devices sell like crazy regardless of price says it all. Anyone can match a price-cut (see Android). The trick is to sell something so compelling that people line up and spend $$$ on it.

There’s a TON of value in Apple’s ecosystem… Security, privacy, curated environment among many others and customers appreciate that. It’s like shopping at a ShopRite as opposed to some seedy bodega. Epic obviously doesn’t see value in the bodega customers.
 
JRLMustang said:
The trick is to sell something so compelling that people line up and spend $$$ on it.

There’s a TON of value in Apple’s ecosystem. Security, privacy, curated environment among many others and customers appreciate that.
Click to expand...

And why Apple manufactures and sells roughly 600,000+ iPhones per day (on the average), every day of the year. Apple makes a premium product people want to buy - for the above reasons.
 
Back
Top