Two facts about Apple: 1) Apple is #3 in the world in game revenue 2) Apple doesn’t make gameshttps://twitter.com/Rizstanford/status/1300085913100324865 …
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @cmuratori
You’re implying Apple is immoral or hypocritical for making money from selling things they don’t make, but this is what retailers do. In my business, retailer takes at least 50% of what the end consumer pays. Apple, powerful for sure, but monopoly?
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @protonperson @TimSweeneyEpic
[1/2] Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is not a serious question. They clearly have a monopoly on iOS software. The appropriate question is, is "iOS software" a "market"? This is not a philosophical question, it is a legal question, defined by a century of US case law.
3 replies 2 retweets 29 likes -
[2/2] The reason my hat is permanently off to Tim and Epic is because, thanks to them fronting huge legal costs and losing a lot of short-term mobile revenue, we will now have a clear-cut case for the US courts to declare whether closed-hardware stores are or aren't "markets".
2 replies 0 retweets 31 likes -
It is not a matter of whether Apple or Epic is "greedy", whether Apple is "right" or "wrong", or has a "right to control" their hardware, or any other what-you-think-should-happen opinion. It is a question of US and California law, because Apple is required to follow those laws.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
I’m a lawyer so I get this. Full disclosure, I’m not an anti-trust lawyer, but I am an Apple shareholder. Maybe to far in the weeds for twitter, but what is the legal precedent for saying that iOS is a market unto itself based on what % of gaming revenue it collects?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @protonperson @TimSweeneyEpic
[1/2] Well that is kind of the point :) We don't have much in the way of legal precedents for controlled hardware because there haven't been many cases in the modern context of ubiquitous single-company-controlled cell phones. These _will_ be the precedents :)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
[2/2] So Apple v. Pepper was about _who_ could sue - and it was a narrow victory for iOS _users_ in that it was 5-4 that they had standing. Now Epic v. Apple is a very clear-cut case that can go to SCOTUS about whether iOS constitutes a "market" or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
So again, hats off to Tim and Epic for doing this test case. I could tell just by how they did it (offering a pass-on savings to the user and letting Apple block them) that they wanted the cleanest possible case so courts could hear a narrow case and decide it. Thank you, Epic!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.