No Problem hahaha

Thanks for that reply.

You can only use the PlayStation store on your PlayStation you bought. Why are you forced to into their walled garden. You bought it. 99% of your purchases go through there. Same for Xbox store. Same for Nintendo. And yes they could go build their own store. In fact, epic has accounts linked. You can buy ANYWHERE and just play on iPhone and cut Apple out that way. Why not let people login and buy on the epic store. Also in game advertise the benefits of doing so. Doing the contract, making the deal, and then trying to force the homeowner to change the deal because you don’t want to do it their way is totally wrong. Period. Hell, employment works that way. You can’t go raising hell because Todd makes more than you for the same job. Todd made his deal and you made yours. If you don’t like it, take your business/ talents/ ass somewhere else. There’s no “human element” in business. Sucks, but it is what it is.
Also your windows thing is totally different. Windows isn’t a “platform” it’s a operating system. It’s the most popular by far and wide but that’s all it is. Helps open files, runs programs, organizes things alll with a user friendly interface. If they limited you in anyway, there’s tons of other OS’s that would gobble up that market share like fresh cookies. People would deal with them working out the kinks as they made more money all for the sake of freedom of choice, of which there are many. That’s why androids are so popular.

With Apples store on apples Platform using apples OS or the PlayStation store on PlayStations platform using Playstations OS it’s totally different. They can allow and deny as they see fit. You can’t go run the Xbox OS on your PlayStation if you don’t like how it works.

"What if want to buy and use a non-Apple piece of software with it."

Then you can't do this officially. As agreed upon when you signed onto the device, and clicked agree to the ToS which you didn't read.

Apple is a closed platform. At best, the courts can prevent Apple from not allowing jail breaking, but that isn't always easy to do, and there is precedence with closed systems with Sony from about 10 years ago. The courts put out a judgement that since jail breaking was primarily for piracy, Sony wasn't required to not try and prevent it. And Apple's devices are no different, but since phones or mobile devices may not fall into the same spectrum as "jail-breaking is for piracy" as I believe there are cases which say that a person can jailbreak such devices from before as well(not well versed there), then that may become a thing.

But, this kind of judgement isn't likely to benefit the devs, Epic, or anyone who wants what Epic is trying to achieve here. The percentage of people who actually jailbreak their devices is pretty marginal in the overall picture.

"Does Apple have the right to force everyone into its walled garden after that? "

Yes, because that is what you are buying when you buy the device. You don't buy a new UHD player and get mad it doesn't have Dolby Vision when it wasn't sold as a DV enabled UHD player. Just because the hardware is there to allow it, doesn't mean you are entitled to it. Google allows other store fronts, Apple doesn't. It's the prerogative of the company. There are no third party OEM vendors which they are manipulating to prevent competition. They control the entirety of their devices and OS. Since they are nowhere near a monopoly on the larger market, there is no real anti-trust going on here. The anti-trust investigations against Apple now are because of the things they've done which prevent competition on their platform for apps and services that they themselves have an interest in. Apple isn't preventing Epic from publishing because of it's own product or service. It's just Epic isn't following the rules to publish on the platform. Apple restricting them in this case isn't anti-trust.

"We see the difference on the desktop OS front. This is why the MS suit from the 90s is referenced"

that was a much different case to this one. That case was MS stipulating to OEM vendors that they could not install other internet browsers other than IE with their OEM windows installs. They also strong armed vendors to not do dual boot configurations.

Apple is doing none of this with what Epic is fighting against, and I cited above what Apple's anti-trust is about, which is actually similar to what MS did, but also different. You could always freely download 3rd party on Windows and MacOS, but iOS isn't not MacOS or Windows. Epic wants it to be, but it isn't.

"Imagine if the only software available on Windows had to be bought from the Windows store."

This would require MS changing what they actually offer in Windows, and if they applied it to already existing versions of Windows, they would probably get slapped with anti-trust lawsuits. If they made a new product that tried this, then the consumer may not go for it, but if they did, then tough sh*t for the consumer.

Cell phones aren't necessary. They're just useful to have.

Epic just wants more money on Apple's platform. Any argument in favor of Epic is ridiculous. Microsoft riding on this is obvious in that they too, want to make more money with Xcloud on Apple's platform since windows phones failed.

How a company thinks they can defy a policy, cut out the middleman and create their own deal, when the middleman owns the product, is a twisted world we live in.

Well businesses want money, that's certainly true.

A bit ironic that 2 of the biggest antitrust suits in history involved phones (AT&T) and Operating Systems (Microsoft), yet people still say something like "Cell phones aren't necessary. They're just useful to have."

Cell phones are utilities at this point. Regardless, even that doesn't predicate being found to be a monopoly.

Go read the complaints and better understand the arguments made. Or don't and continue to shout at the clouds, whatever you think is best for you, I suppose. But please don't lick the horse shit off of corporate boots and then try to argue that THESE boots taste better than THOSE other boots. Your breath stinks either way.

Anti-trust isn't always about breaking up monopolies. Breaking up the bells was, but MS suit was about actual anti-competative practices that MS tried to do based on their dominance of the market.

The facts are though, is that Apple actually doesn't dominate the market. They are certainly a major player, and they definitely set up the business plan for how the whole market profits, but they are nowhere near a monopoly. Google offers some of what you are talking about, and is more successful. MS with their mobileOS actually was even more open about such things, and it failed miserably, despite being pretty good quality phones and OS.

These kinds of cases have already been tried in the past. The whole jailbreaking thing was passed down due to potential anti-trust issues, and with mobile devices it was deemed allowed for devices which were licensed out. But Apple doesn't license out it's OS. It controls the entire production of the hardware, software, and distribution. They aren't strong arming competition in this case, because they are their own product and service within the greater whole. A Sony case for PS3 said that since it was closed, jail-breaking didn't have to be an expectation for the system.

Many who use the app store to sell products would agree that Apple is probably the worst when it comes to support, but they actually aren't out of line for what they ask for as their cut of the revenues. While we could discuss if that amount is right, that's besides the point. But the court is going to look at that and say, well, they're not charging excessively more within their closed system, but going by industry standard. Even MS supporting them, but also taking the same amount renders the amount of revenue cuts argument moot in the court of law.

Epic wants to change that cut, and I really believe, and hope, that they manage to make that revenue split more agreeable across the board. I'm not against what they want to achieve by getting Apple to open up their system more. But, I think they are not doing this in a productive way. It seems too antagonistic, and they're trying to hard to win in the court of public opinion, hoping that will cascade as bad press for Apple, which they will care about enough to change their policies. But this isn't how Apple typically operates. They know it'll pass in the public, then people will keep buying their products, and devs will keep publishing their wares.

The courts can't dictate to Apple how much to charge. It's outside their purview. Apple isn't withholding a necessity(price-gouging). They aren't profiting excessively over being a monopoly(the bell breakup). They aren't strong arming competition to prevent other competing products(MS case from the 90's).

Apple is currently under investigation for anti-trust violations, but that has to do with what they've done within their own store, which is prevent or remove apps which would compete against their own products, sometimes after those competing products were already successful. But, that isn't what happened here with Epic, as Epic basically just violated the already agreed upon, and currently effective terms of service that they agreed to when they decided to publish on the system.

One can agree with what Epic is doing, or trying to do here. But that doesn't mean that Apple is in the wrong. Maybe morally or ethically, but that's based on our own ideals, not legalities or standard practices.

These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse