3 ms·

This is going to backfire for Epic. I see both sides, however, the App Stores have overhead to support free apps, and they need to be compensated. If a softwa

This is going to backfire for Epic. I see both sides, however, the App Stores have overhead to support free apps, and they need to be compensated. If a software developer has an issue with the distribution channel, then they can make their own, including the R&D and operate expense for the hardware. I know, really unpopular take. Bigger question is are Apple and Google (with hardware/software ecosystems) deserving of Bell-style regulation? The US already has a playbook for this.

mmastrac 6y ago
That argument doesn't work for other monopolies and won't hold a lot of water here either.
- teknopurge 6y ago
  there is no monopoly - there are two primary choices(coke and pepsi), both with the similar constraints. You can choose RC cola or Faygo - always an option. Maybe Faygo offers a great new flavor(no payment fees) and tons of Users see that benefit outweighing other features? That's the market. Make the compelling value prop and you win.
  - mmastrac 6y ago
    Monopoly does not require a single actor, nor 100% of market share.
  - user5994461 6y ago
    It's funny you'd take coke as an example when there are hundreds of coke equivalents, each store selling its own off brands.
    - teknopurge 6y ago
      sharp - that is part of my point actually :)
    - badwolf 6y ago
      Like the Galaxy App Store?
wvenable 6y ago
According to another comment here, Epic paid Apple over $360 Million dollars in the last twelve months. I'm pretty sure Apple's overhead isn't so high that they need to charge that much money for just one application. Epic already has a distribution channel, payment processing, the whole 9 yards, what they don't have is anyway onto the hardware that you own.
- teknopurge 6y ago
  The amount paid to Apple is not a factor - it's what the agreement was. If that 360 MM is 30%, then we can also say I doubt Epic has over a billion in overhead. I do not believe the point is valid. Epic does have a way onto the phones: provide an easy way for User's to jailbreak them as part of the ingress to the Epic distribution channel. "In 2010 and 2012, the U.S. Copyright Office approved exemptions that allowed smartphone users to jailbreak their devices legally,[62] and in 2015 the Copyright Office approved an expanded exemption that also covers other all-purpose mobile computing devices, such as tablets" So all Epic needs to do is assume the cost and investment of managing the inter-dependencies of the hardware with various other pieces of software, including their distribution channel.
tomxor 6y ago
> the App Stores have overhead to support free apps, and they need to be compensated. That doesn't add up to anywhere near 30%
- teknopurge 6y ago
  With respect, it's not our call to criticize the amount. If we as a community care that much we can create and adopt alternate means, or choose not to use their technology.
  - tomxor 6y ago
    > If we as a community care that much we can create and adopt alternate means, or choose not to use their technology. This is the entire point of the case, that you have little to no alternative.

mmastrac 6y ago

That argument doesn't work for other monopolies and won't hold a lot of water here either.

teknopurge 6y ago
there is no monopoly - there are two primary choices(coke and pepsi), both with the similar constraints. You can choose RC cola or Faygo - always an option. Maybe Faygo offers a great new flavor(no payment fees) and tons of Users see that benefit outweighing other features? That's the market. Make the compelling value prop and you win.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  Monopoly does not require a single actor, nor 100% of market share.
- user5994461 6y ago
  It's funny you'd take coke as an example when there are hundreds of coke equivalents, each store selling its own off brands.
  - teknopurge 6y ago
    sharp - that is part of my point actually :)
  - badwolf 6y ago
    Like the Galaxy App Store?

wvenable 6y ago

According to another comment here, Epic paid Apple over $360 Million dollars in the last twelve months. I'm pretty sure Apple's overhead isn't so high that they need to charge that much money for just one application. Epic already has a distribution channel, payment processing, the whole 9 yards, what they don't have is anyway onto the hardware that you own.

teknopurge 6y ago
The amount paid to Apple is not a factor - it's what the agreement was. If that 360 MM is 30%, then we can also say I doubt Epic has over a billion in overhead. I do not believe the point is valid. Epic does have a way onto the phones: provide an easy way for User's to jailbreak them as part of the ingress to the Epic distribution channel. "In 2010 and 2012, the U.S. Copyright Office approved exemptions that allowed smartphone users to jailbreak their devices legally,[62] and in 2015 the Copyright Office approved an expanded exemption that also covers other all-purpose mobile computing devices, such as tablets" So all Epic needs to do is assume the cost and investment of managing the inter-dependencies of the hardware with various other pieces of software, including their distribution channel.

tomxor 6y ago

> the App Stores have overhead to support free apps, and they need to be compensated. That doesn't add up to anywhere near 30%

teknopurge 6y ago
With respect, it's not our call to criticize the amount. If we as a community care that much we can create and adopt alternate means, or choose not to use their technology.
- tomxor 6y ago
  > If we as a community care that much we can create and adopt alternate means, or choose not to use their technology. This is the entire point of the case, that you have little to no alternative.