4 ms·

It seems Epic put more energy into the commercial announcing the trial than they put into the actual trial. I’m rooting for them but I really don’t know what th

It seems Epic put more energy into the commercial announcing the trial than they put into the actual trial. I’m rooting for them but I really don’t know what they’re doing or how they’ve lost control of the narrative so badly so early on. Maybe they underestimated Goliath’s PR machine? I don’t envy their legal team trying to regroup this weekend.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
It's a sure-to-lose lawsuit launched in the hopes of motivating a Congress strongly influenced by an anti-tech, anti-corporate progressive insurgency in the ruling party and, oh yeah, a global pandemic. I appreciate Epic's position, and would support it if it had been litigated through the legislature. But as it is, it's a flagrant waste of our courts' time, a public resource.
- shephardjhon 5y ago
  Its not anti-tech or anti-corpprate, its anti-monopoly. Remember its two huge corporations fighting this battle, Epic isn't some innocent tiny startup but in this case they have a point that Apple and Google have too much control and the fight has already resulted in smaller developers getting more share of their sales on the two app stores.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Its not anti-tech or anti-corpprate, its anti-monopoly Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the current mood in Congress. Epic has tailwinds in there being a desire to reign in Big Tech. It has headwinds in being, itself, a tech company. That balance is, on the net, favourable to Epic. But marginally favourable isn’t a great position to be in when it comes to policy in a crowded legislative session.
  - speeder 5y ago
    Epic is certainly not anti-monopoly. And Apple is actually trashing them in court because of that. For example Apple lawyer asked if Epic would have accepted a deal where Apple maintained the current ecosystem but let Epic have an exception... Epic said yes. At another point Apple asked difference between them, Xbox, Switch, etc..., Epic said that because consoles are sold at loss they having a monopoly is fine... so that is a bad argument if you are trying to prove you are anti-monopoly. And this goes on and on... Then there is the fact Epic paid 1 billion USD to developers not sell in other stores, including in some cases to break contracts to do so (for example kickstarted games, that promised Steam delivery, and then told the people that paid them that it would be Epic only and there would be no refunds).
    - aranelsurion 5y ago
      Sounds like OP meant this case is anti-monopoly, not Epic itself.
    - hajile 5y ago
      Epic doesn’t have to convince the jury that they’re innocent or even not despicable. They only need to convince the jury that Apple is doing bad things.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Epic’s “position” that came out in trial was that they wanted a special deal from Apple. They are fighting for no one other than themselves.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

It's a sure-to-lose lawsuit launched in the hopes of motivating a Congress strongly influenced by an anti-tech, anti-corporate progressive insurgency in the ruling party and, oh yeah, a global pandemic. I appreciate Epic's position, and would support it if it had been litigated through the legislature. But as it is, it's a flagrant waste of our courts' time, a public resource.

shephardjhon 5y ago
Its not anti-tech or anti-corpprate, its anti-monopoly. Remember its two huge corporations fighting this battle, Epic isn't some innocent tiny startup but in this case they have a point that Apple and Google have too much control and the fight has already resulted in smaller developers getting more share of their sales on the two app stores.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Its not anti-tech or anti-corpprate, its anti-monopoly Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the current mood in Congress. Epic has tailwinds in there being a desire to reign in Big Tech. It has headwinds in being, itself, a tech company. That balance is, on the net, favourable to Epic. But marginally favourable isn’t a great position to be in when it comes to policy in a crowded legislative session.
- speeder 5y ago
  Epic is certainly not anti-monopoly. And Apple is actually trashing them in court because of that. For example Apple lawyer asked if Epic would have accepted a deal where Apple maintained the current ecosystem but let Epic have an exception... Epic said yes. At another point Apple asked difference between them, Xbox, Switch, etc..., Epic said that because consoles are sold at loss they having a monopoly is fine... so that is a bad argument if you are trying to prove you are anti-monopoly. And this goes on and on... Then there is the fact Epic paid 1 billion USD to developers not sell in other stores, including in some cases to break contracts to do so (for example kickstarted games, that promised Steam delivery, and then told the people that paid them that it would be Epic only and there would be no refunds).
  - aranelsurion 5y ago
    Sounds like OP meant this case is anti-monopoly, not Epic itself.
  - hajile 5y ago
    Epic doesn’t have to convince the jury that they’re innocent or even not despicable. They only need to convince the jury that Apple is doing bad things.
scarface74 5y ago
Epic’s “position” that came out in trial was that they wanted a special deal from Apple. They are fighting for no one other than themselves.