4 ms·

Ah, so you're saying the key difference is that Apple has allowed the sale of third party content in their product. Do you agree then, that: 1. If Apple didn't

Ah, so you're saying the key difference is that Apple has allowed the sale of third party content in their product. Do you agree then, that: 1. If Apple didn't allow the sale of third party content, they would be in the same position as Epic and therefore there would be no problem? 2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale?

lukeramsden 6y ago
> 2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale? I don't think anyone has a problem with platforms charging _a_ percentage of each sale, just that Apple's is too high (and in the case of their dispute with Spotify, that it allows them to unfairly compete in their own marketplace)
- nodamage 6y ago
  Except Epic wants to force Apple to allow third-party payments so they can entirely avoid the Apple fee.
- Razengan 6y ago
  > just that Apple's is too high How much do Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/Steam charge?
d3nj4l 6y ago
If Apple did not allow the sale of third party content, there wouldn't be "a cut". It's all in house products made by Apple.