4 ms·

Sure Epic can. They can distribute their game as a fully in-browser web app, including building out all the infrastructure required to make this work (like Appl

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

Sure Epic can. They can distribute their game as a fully in-browser web app, including building out all the infrastructure required to make this work (like Apple did). Or Epic can create standalone hardware devices that connect to their game network, do market research and user testing on what makes a good device, develop optimized supply chain and production systems to make the device realizable, and spend on marketing to convince consumers to buy and love the device, also like Apple did. I play chess against people on any devices, through chess.com in a browser, even on my mobile devices. “Epic can’t stay competitive” in that scenario is 100% Epic’s problem, they are not owed a slot in an app store distribution mechanism that they also don’t have to obey the policies of.

nabla9 6y ago
Are you trying to be sarcastic?
- parasubvert 6y ago
  Not that I can tell. He is also completely right.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    His arguments seems to be completely rhetorical and absolutist. "If it's in principle possible to offer an alternative regardless of any cost, even if it's not practical, then there is no monopoly."
    - parasubvert 6y ago
      There is a technical definition of monopoly, and this case has a lot of people throwing around terms like “monopoly rents” with no relationship to the actual definition. A monopoly means you have total control over a market and thus control the price of the market. Monopoly rents are where you can charge higher prices but people won’t go to the competition. Neither is true: app devs can charge whatever they want for their apps. The redirections are about stopping underselling across stores which is a common retail practice when they carry your wares. This is a fight about retail markup. Epic knows they don’t have a strong legal case which is why they have the PR campaign. The only recourse will be to convince people to change the laws, because this case doesn’t neatly fit in the traditional antitrust model.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      The costs and investment are not unrealistic or unreasonable. Apple paid those costs. Google paid those costs. There’s a difference between saying “it would be really hard for Epic to recreate an ecosystem and hardware like Apple’s distribution channel” vs “it is structurally intractable or unrealistic in any way.” If Apple & Google slogged through a decade of developing devices, app stores, manufacturing, etc. then so can Epic. If that’s really hard and Epic doesn’t want to do it, they can play by app store rules and use existing app stores. The fact that it’s hard and expensive for Epic to do it their own way is no excuse to call other businesses monopolies. They aren’t doing anything that structurally stops Epic from building its own thing if it wants different policies. Your argument is specious. It’s like saying the suggestion of building your own toll road is too hard, so some other toll road operator (who sunk capital into making their toll road) suddenly has to let you use it for free. If they built the toll road, and they aren’t structurally sabotaging you from going and building your own if you don’t like the tolls, then this is your problem, and the other party exists as living proof that “this is hard” is not an adequate excuse. You can’t cry monopoly just because you don’t like something and feel it would be hard for you to do it a different way on your own.

nabla9 6y ago

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

parasubvert 6y ago
Not that I can tell. He is also completely right.
- nabla9 6y ago
  His arguments seems to be completely rhetorical and absolutist. "If it's in principle possible to offer an alternative regardless of any cost, even if it's not practical, then there is no monopoly."
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    There is a technical definition of monopoly, and this case has a lot of people throwing around terms like “monopoly rents” with no relationship to the actual definition. A monopoly means you have total control over a market and thus control the price of the market. Monopoly rents are where you can charge higher prices but people won’t go to the competition. Neither is true: app devs can charge whatever they want for their apps. The redirections are about stopping underselling across stores which is a common retail practice when they carry your wares. This is a fight about retail markup. Epic knows they don’t have a strong legal case which is why they have the PR campaign. The only recourse will be to convince people to change the laws, because this case doesn’t neatly fit in the traditional antitrust model.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    The costs and investment are not unrealistic or unreasonable. Apple paid those costs. Google paid those costs. There’s a difference between saying “it would be really hard for Epic to recreate an ecosystem and hardware like Apple’s distribution channel” vs “it is structurally intractable or unrealistic in any way.” If Apple & Google slogged through a decade of developing devices, app stores, manufacturing, etc. then so can Epic. If that’s really hard and Epic doesn’t want to do it, they can play by app store rules and use existing app stores. The fact that it’s hard and expensive for Epic to do it their own way is no excuse to call other businesses monopolies. They aren’t doing anything that structurally stops Epic from building its own thing if it wants different policies. Your argument is specious. It’s like saying the suggestion of building your own toll road is too hard, so some other toll road operator (who sunk capital into making their toll road) suddenly has to let you use it for free. If they built the toll road, and they aren’t structurally sabotaging you from going and building your own if you don’t like the tolls, then this is your problem, and the other party exists as living proof that “this is hard” is not an adequate excuse. You can’t cry monopoly just because you don’t like something and feel it would be hard for you to do it a different way on your own.