4 ms·

I agree. Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a

I agree. Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a case to the European Union, which seems to have a knack for pursuing this kind of thing. A ruling over there wouldn't directly impact the rest of the world, but it could get the ball rolling. Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of this whole issue to try to rally customers to their cause. For that, I have no sympathy. Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. And it's not by Apple. I agree that the App store cut is too high. But this is not the way to go about things.

caf 6y ago
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. No, I don't believe they could. The courts in common law jurisdictions generally don't rule on speculative harm, they require an active controversy to rule on.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  The complaint is based on antitrust statutes.
Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
Under American law there has to be an actual harm (meaning alleged harm). Speculative lawsuits where you ask the courts to rule on something ahead of times is not allowed. It's just not how this country views its court system. The courts are for resolving specific conflicts that have occurred -- with factual histories playing key roles in determining which precedents may apply. The larger topic of which this is a part is something called "standing." Lack of standing is quite a common reason for a court to deny hearing a case. Not only does there have to be a harm, the party suing has to be the party that suffered the harm. So you also cannot sue on behalf of others. This is the reason for the initial actions Epic took. Tim Sweeney has been chomping at the bit for this sort of suit for years. But they needed a harm to use as the locus for a suit. There has certainly been a big PR campaign surrounding it to try to sway public opinion to Epic's side, but the action itself was necessary.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Epic already had standing based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected, they did not need to do anything else. The rest was for media attention.
treis 6y ago
>Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts Probably not. Part of the reason Apple has prevailed in the past is the lack of direct consumer arm from their actions. By offering the discounted rate it's no longer disputable that Apple's actions harm the consumer.
Me1000 6y ago
Without taking this action and being removed from the App Store, Epic would not have had standing[0] to sue Apple. Their lawsuit would have likely just been thrown out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
hamandcheese 6y ago
> Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. Just because Epic stands to make an extra buck or two doesn't mean that their incentives are not aligned with small developers and consumers in this particular moment.
- ngcc_hk 6y ago
  They are not. You cannot assume App Store service if all the income I meant all go to the developer only. If they fight for a lower cut may be. But 0! No.
  - fabioyy 6y ago
    I don't think you understood what apple does. apple is forbidding Epic Games to offer "discount" outside apple platform. the price must be equal on all points of sale.

caf 6y ago

Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. No, I don't believe they could. The courts in common law jurisdictions generally don't rule on speculative harm, they require an active controversy to rule on.

himinlomax 6y ago
The complaint is based on antitrust statutes.

Gene_Parmesan 6y ago

Under American law there has to be an actual harm (meaning alleged harm). Speculative lawsuits where you ask the courts to rule on something ahead of times is not allowed. It's just not how this country views its court system. The courts are for resolving specific conflicts that have occurred -- with factual histories playing key roles in determining which precedents may apply. The larger topic of which this is a part is something called "standing." Lack of standing is quite a common reason for a court to deny hearing a case. Not only does there have to be a harm, the party suing has to be the party that suffered the harm. So you also cannot sue on behalf of others. This is the reason for the initial actions Epic took. Tim Sweeney has been chomping at the bit for this sort of suit for years. But they needed a harm to use as the locus for a suit. There has certainly been a big PR campaign surrounding it to try to sway public opinion to Epic's side, but the action itself was necessary.

nodamage 6y ago
Epic already had standing based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected, they did not need to do anything else. The rest was for media attention.

treis 6y ago

>Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts Probably not. Part of the reason Apple has prevailed in the past is the lack of direct consumer arm from their actions. By offering the discounted rate it's no longer disputable that Apple's actions harm the consumer.

Me1000 6y ago

Without taking this action and being removed from the App Store, Epic would not have had standing[0] to sue Apple. Their lawsuit would have likely just been thrown out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

hamandcheese 6y ago

> Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. Just because Epic stands to make an extra buck or two doesn't mean that their incentives are not aligned with small developers and consumers in this particular moment.

ngcc_hk 6y ago
They are not. You cannot assume App Store service if all the income I meant all go to the developer only. If they fight for a lower cut may be. But 0! No.
- fabioyy 6y ago
  I don't think you understood what apple does. apple is forbidding Epic Games to offer "discount" outside apple platform. the price must be equal on all points of sale.