10 ms·
> Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market. Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite. The problem is that as soon as you allow narrowing your de
by misnome 6y ago
> Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market.
Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite.
The problem is that as soon as you allow narrowing your definition of words to whatever supports your argument, then they become meaningless.
- LexGray 6y agoIt would be amusing if the outcome of this is that Epic has to allow outside sources of content in their games instead of having it in a vBuck walled garden. I'm sure many developers would be happy get a part of a billion dollar a year market without paying Epic a cut. Imagine the irony of everyone running around Fortnite in Apple store branded loot.
- three_seagrass 6y agoPlayers don't pay $500 just to play fortnite.
- naikrovek 6y ago> Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite. 3rd party artists can't create anything that can be used inside Fortnite, neither inside the v-bucks store nor outside of it. There's no 3rd party "market" at all. Apple has a market where third parties can market their apps. Apple requires a cut of all purchases made through that store, which alone is not monopolistic. Apple also requires that you sell your iOS app and any iOS in-app purchases only in their marketplace. That's the monopolistic part. No one can create 3rd party items for Fortnite at all, so there is no monopoly on where 3rd party items for Fortnite are sold. It's not even illegal to have a monopoly; it's illegal to use your monopoly powers to keep other parties from competing, and that's exactly what Apple has done.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xuki 6y agoYou can also buy vbucks outside of the App Store and use them on your iOS devices. I’m not sure what’s the distinction here.
- misnome 6y agoAh, but that's outside of Fortnite. Inside Fortnite they have a monopoly on selling items, right?
- pests 6y agoThe core point your parent was trying to make is that Fortnite is not an open market. No one but Epic provides goods to the Epic store. Apple allowing third party developers is the distinction being made.
- naikrovek 6y agoYes, thank you.
- Despegar 6y agoApple's platforms aren't an open market either. They allow third party developers to develop for their platforms, subject to you agreeing to their terms.
- three_seagrass 6y agoAgreeing to a TOS is a standard for open markets. Splitting hairs over a TOS existing is ignoring the fact that Epic doesn't allow third parties to sell in their market (with or without a TOS).
- Despegar 6y agoWhen you accept Apple's developer agreement, you're agreeing to a contract. It absolutely isn't an "open market" for any definition of what that means. Apple has exclusive control of their IP and they are offering a way for you to license it on their terms.
- pests 6y agoRegardless of what term you use it's a fact of reality that right now no one else but Epic can put content on the Epic Store which is not true of Apple and the App Store.
- donor20 6y agoXbox has a monpoly on their game store. Sony has a monpoloy on their game store. Come on - is this argument going to be used for all these too? Walmart has a monopoly on what sells in Walmart.
- rymate1234 6y agoUnironically there should be alternatives for those platforms, and the Switch
- ifmpx 6y agoI'd include walmart too if walmart is the only store I'm ever allowed to shop at.
- sjwright 6y agoApple doesn’t force you to own an iPhone.
- thewhitetulip 6y agoIn a world where walmart is the only store & it bans all other retail stores from existing, Walmart will become monopoly. This is false equivalence
- danity 6y agoWhat do you call the Play Store? What do you call Android? Talk about false equivalence, you’ve just demonstrated that.
- willtim 6y agoThe Play Store has very little for tablets. The Android tablet market is effectively dead.
- thewhitetulip 6y ago
- nodamage 6y agoSo, let's say hypothetically Epic allowed the sale of third-party skins in Fortnite. Would a skinmaker would be entitled to demand the following concessions? 1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store. 2. The ability to pay for Fortnite skins using payment methods other than V-bucks. Alternatively, should Epic not be permitted to impose the following restrictions in their Fortnite store? 1. Skins must be approved by Epic before they can be sold. No x-rated skins, etc. 2. Epic will take a 30% cut of each skin sold. What if I'm a skinmaker that wants to compete with Epic because I think I can provide higher quality Fortnite skins than they have made. Should I be able to demand to participate in the "Fortnite skin" market which is currently 100% controlled by Epic?
- lwansbrough 6y agoI think it's a very American perspective to see this as black or white. You should be able to tell something is wrong by looking at what Apple is doing. Looking at how Fortnite operates does not give me the same feeling. Obviously Fortnite as a platform is not the same as iOS as a platform, and holding monopoly positions for each yield completely different outcomes. They are not equivalent.
- quotha 6y agoMaybe you should read more about Epic games the “private” company. It is owned mainly by Tencent which answers to the Chinese government.
- untog 6y agoHow is that relevant to this conversation at all?
- nemothekid 6y agoRegulation is a blunt tool - it not enough to just feel they are not equivalent. Any law that may apply to Apple will apply to everyone else as well. The American perspective is that the government should not pick and choose winners
- simonh 6y agoXCode, the iOS software libraries and tools are all Apple products and are used to develop software for iOS. By requiring that Apple allow developers to distribute software outside the App Store with no revenue for Apple, you are requiring Apple to give away their products for free. On what basis do you or anyone else have that right? Apple has a monopoly on how those products are sold and licensed because they are Apple products, in exactly the same way that Fortnite and it's marketplace are Epic products. There's no requirement for Epic to open that up, and if they do it will be on their terms. Their house, their rules.
- yomly 6y agoHow would you feel if your ISPs started wanting a cut of all money you made via the internet? After all, it's their house so their rules... Apple have carved out a significant market share of mobile users. They've locked down the OS so you can't install your own apps on it and they've crippled the browser so you can't build nice web apps. For businesses like Netflix, Spotify and Epic who's userbases arguably transcend the App Store, why should they pay the Apple Tax? Apple doesn't "own" these users. But if you want to extend your services to them you have to pony up.
- simonh 6y agoI don't expect to use my ISP's infrastructure for free. However most of that infrastructure was built using tax payer's money, on tax payer's land with special privileges granted by the government, and special tax incentives for improvements. In return we, the people, demand certain concessions and rules to compensate us. I'm actually in the UK, but the situation on this here and in the US are different in many details but in broad strokes are equivalent. The iOS operating system, developer tools, platform libraries and the App Store and distribution system are all Apple products built by them on their own dime and at their own commercial risk. On what basis do you get to dictate to them what features they must or must not develop, what services they must be coerced to provide and what contractual relationships they are required to enter into? There's just no basis for that.
- 6y ago
- m463 6y agowouldn't that be a monopsony (only one buyer of your goods)