Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple

Apple is Trying To Drag Valve Into its Ongoing Legal Battle with Epic Games, and Valve Wants Nothing To Do With It (pcgamer.com) 132

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
A new court filing has revealed that, as part of the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, Apple subpoenaed Valve Software in November 2020, demanding it provide huge amounts of commercial data about Steam sales and operations going over multiple years. From a report: Apple subpoenaed Valve under the basic argument that certain Steam information would be crucial to building its case against Epic, which is all about competitive practices. Yesterday a joint discovery letter was filed to the District court in Northern California relating to the subpoena, which contains a summary of the behind-the-scenes tussles thus far, and both sides' arguments about where to go from here.

[...] Apple wants Valve to provide the names, prices, configurations and dates of every product on Steam, as well as detailed accounts of exactly how much money Steam makes and how it is all divvied-up. Apple argues that this information is necessary for its case against Epic, is not available elsewhere, and "does not raise risk of any competitive harm." Needless to say, Valve does not agree. Its counter-argument to the above says that Valve has co-operated to what it believes to be a reasonable extent -- "Valve already produced documents regarding its revenue share, competition with Epic, Steam distribution contracts, and other documents" -- before going on to outline the nature of Apple's requests: "that Valve (i) recreate six years' worth of PC game and item sales for hundreds of third party video games, then (ii) produce a massive amount of confidential information about these games and Valve's revenues." In a masterpiece of understatement, Valve's legal counsel writes: "Apple wrongly claims those requests are narrow. They are not." Apple apparently demanded data on 30,000+ games initially, before narrowing its focus to around 600. Request 32 gets incredibly granular, Valve explains: Apple is demanding information about every version of a given product, all digital content and items, sale dates and every price change from 2015 to the present day, the gross revenues for each version, broken down individually, and all of Valve's revenues from it.

Valve says it does not "in the ordinary course of business keep the information Apple seeks for a simple reason: Valve doesn't need it." Valve's argument goes on to explain to the court that it is not a competitor in the mobile space (this is, after all, a dispute that began with Fortnite on iOS), and makes the point that "Valve is not Epic, and Fortnite is not available on Steam." It further says that Apple is using Valve as a shortcut to a huge amount of third party data that rightfully belongs to those third parties. The conclusion of Valve's argument calls for the court to throw Apple's subpoena out. "Somehow, in a dispute over mobile apps, a maker of PC games that does not compete in the mobile market or sell 'apps' is being portrayed as a key figure. It's not. The extensive and highly confidential information Apple demands about a subset of the PC games available on Steam does not show the size or parameters of the relevant market and would be massively burdensome to pull together. Apple's demands for further production should be rejected."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple is Trying To Drag Valve Into its Ongoing Legal Battle with Epic Games, and Valve Wants Nothing To Do With It More

Apple is Trying To Drag Valve Into its Ongoing Legal Battle with Epic Games, and Valve Wants Nothing To Do With It

Comments Filter:

  • Fishing expedition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by memory_register ( 6248354 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @10:52AM (#61079720)
    Grab your boots, boys!

    In all seriousness, this is an egregious overreach by Apple's legal team. They are fishing for a catch that doesn't belong to them, in a pond they don't own, to fight a neighbor who doesn't even live in the same town.

    • Re:Fishing expedition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:11AM (#61079784)

      They are fishing for a catch that doesn't belong to them, in a pond they don't own

      I mean, it sounds like Apple are fishing in some place that isn't even a body of water. Like they went to a jewelry store, or crowded stadium, attempt to claim it's a pond, and cast their nets out.

      It's odd that they would want that much info from Steam -- it would be a nightmare to try and process so much. Only thing I can think of is it may be a delaying tactic or an effort to gain access to marketing data to benefit the company's business outside their legal defense.

      • Remember: Apple cares about your PII. Just not other people's PII.

      • It's odd that they would want that much info from Steam

        There is nothing odd about an evil megacorporation wanting something that doesn't belong to them and they have no right to in the first place.

      • It's odd that they would want that much info from Steam -- it would be a nightmare to try and process so much. Only thing I can think of is it may be a delaying tactic or an effort to gain access to marketing data to benefit the company's business outside their legal defense.

        It seems pretty obvious Valve can't contribute anything to an argument about app stores on iOS, except maybe the fact that customers love Steam and can't use their purchases on iOS basically demonstrates the anti-trust argument *agains

    • They are attempting to gather data from the most popular "app store" to show that Apple's practices are not out of the norm.

      Epic's primary complaint against Apple is their practices are not industry standard.

      • Re:Fishing expedition (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Merk42 ( 1906718 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:40AM (#61079884)
        Is Steam the only place to get software on the device it's installed on?
        No? Well then why does Apple need any more detail than that.
        • Is Steam the only place to get software on the device it's installed on?
          No? Well then why does Apple need any more detail than that.

          That is not the issue. I was thinking along the same lines as the OP. Apple is trying to claim that what it does, taking a cut of the money, is no different than what Steam does. It has nothing to do with how many games Steam has or if they can be gotten elsewhere. It's about if you're using Steam to buy games you have to pay Steam for that privilege and Steam gets a c

          • Re:Fishing expedition (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rpresser ( 610529 ) <rpresser@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday February 19, 2021 @01:35PM (#61080316)
            Indeed, that is the argument Apple made to the court when it complained its subpoena was not answered properly. It's bullshit however, like everything Apple has ever done since 1976. 1) "Apple's App Store is to iOS gaming as Steam is to PC gaming" is easily demolished bullshit. Steam's store runs on both Windows and Linux; App Store runs only on iOS. If I don't like Steam, I have zillions of other places to get my PC games. I also have zillions of places to get productivity software for my PC. But if I don't like the App Store, I get zero games or any other apps at all for my iOS device, because Apple Says So. This is the difference between a highway that allows cars owned by anyone to enter and exit anywhere, and a railroad that owns the stations, trains and rails. 2) Apple wants data to use as ammunition to penetrate new markets like Android gaming and even Windows gaming, and they found an argument to use that might get it for them for free (or at least for no more than they are already paying lawyers in the lawsuit). This, like everything Apple does, is pure greed and pure sleaze.

            • Re:Fishing expedition (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @04:02PM (#61080886)
              the funny thing is, I think that if Apple is trying to show equivalence in market by using Steam, this strategy would seriously backfire on them. People have often talked about Steam's dominance, but the very fact that Epic is building it's own store and GOG has established itself as a stable alternative platform suggests Steam, while being the clear behemoth market leader, does not have outright dominance of the PC install base the way that Apple does. Epic alone proved that, so this strategy seems really risky for Apple's case.

              The commenter below me mentioned Apple has allowed 3rd party app stores for a while now doesn't work. The key part is "Apple has allowed". Steam doesn't "allow" anyone to have a third party store on people's PCs; anyone can set up a store for the PC market. Apple has to allow some 3rd party to be on the platform; that gives them too much power on their install base.

              • but the very fact that Epic is building it's own store and GOG has established itself as a stable alternative platform suggests Steam, while being the clear behemoth market leader, does not have outright dominance of the PC install base

                But the very fact that Firefox built their own browser and Opera has established itself as a stable alternative browser suggests Microsoft, while being the clear behemoth market leader, does not have outright dominance of the internet browser install base.

                Just because they're alternatives doesn't mean you're in the clear.

                • That's a false equivalency. IE gained dominance through it's bundling with Windows, the most common operating system. That's more like what Apple is doing, which is using it's overwhelming market dominance in one area to squash competition in another area. Steam is Steam, it has no control over Windows, PC hardware or anything, it's just a platform for delivering PC games; Valve is not using it's Steam platform size to squash competition to, say FPS' that compete with Half Life.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                My guess would be that they are trying to show that 30% isn't unreasonable, and may in fact be quite good. I don't know what Steam charges but it does have some pretty big sales so I imagine margins can be tight at times, and it must have some pretty hefty overheads for bandwidth from the larger games.

                Or maybe Steam is a bit fairer. Apple was probably just hoping to pull out some examples to use to make their offer look generous, instead of the rip-off that Epic claim it is.

                • Steam is a bit fairer: https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]

                  They take 30% of the first $10M in sales, then 25% between $10M and $50M, then 20% for $50M and over. In that article quoted, it refers to this:

                  "...and it seems clearly designed to entice more developers to stick around, instead of self-releasing games or going with the growing number of competing online game distributors."

                  Apple has no competitor for the iOS landscape, whereas Steam has alternative sources that require it to adjust it's pri

            • 2) Apple wants data to use as ammunition to penetrate new markets like Android gaming and even Windows gaming, and they found an argument to use that might get it for them for free (or at least for no more than they are already paying lawyers in the lawsuit). This, like everything Apple does, is pure greed and pure sleaze.

              As I said in another comment, I'd put my money on they want Valve's VR sales data more than anything. They're rumored to be close to launching a VR product and this is data they can't jus

          • > Apple wants this information to show that what it does is not outside of the industry standard.

            Then Apple would have to admit its 1/3 share was NOT based on a "reasonable and ordinary" basis.

            Which we all know is true - Apple's fee is based on "maximum possible profit".

            Valve's attorneys should go for abuse of process and sanctions on Apple's attorneys.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 )

              Apple's 30% is a bargain. Some friends and I used to do some independent desktop development in our spare time before the App Store came along. It was nothing big... just enough to keep us in beer money and maybe a nice vacation once a year; but it was cool to occasionally (okay... rarely) see it on a store shelf. But I think too many people have forgotten what it takes to get the App Store's service set without the actual App Store.

              For Apple's 30% you get publishing, hosting, distribution, promotion, cr

              • For Apple's 30% you get publishing, hosting, distribution, promotion, credit card processing including Apple dealing with the PCI headaches, the notification service, analytics, and workable copy-protection

                ...and no alternative store for the iOS market. No other choice. No competition from someone else who might take a lower cut.
                That's the problem right there.

                In the PC market, as a developer, I could choose Steam with all advantages you mentioned, OR I could choose GOG, OR Epic Game Store, OR I could go origin way, OR... OR... OR...
                Maybe game store Epic would offer me a better deal than store Steam. Maybe I could publish on Steam AND on GOG at the same time. You know, freedom of choice and shit.

                • For Apple's 30% you get publishing, hosting, distribution, promotion, credit card processing including Apple dealing with the PCI headaches, the notification service, analytics, and workable copy-protection

                  ...and no alternative store for the iOS market. No other choice. No competition from someone else who might take a lower cut.
                  That's the problem right there.

                  In the PC market, as a developer, I could choose Steam with all advantages you mentioned, OR I could choose GOG, OR Epic Game Store, OR I could go origin way, OR... OR... OR...
                  Maybe game store Epic would offer me a better deal than store Steam. Maybe I could publish on Steam AND on GOG at the same time. You know, freedom of choice and shit.

                  I get it, this is /., so people are inclined to prioritize developers. But the law should prioritize consumers. Apple's model prioritizes consumers over developers. The PC model you're advocating for prioritizes developers over consumers.

                  If consumers gave a damn about developers having alternative methods to sell apps on their devises they wouldn't buy iOS devises (many don't). The fact of the matter is that there are many consumers—myself included—who do not want Apple to make alternative app s

                  • I'm sorry, but I was also speaking from a consumer perspective.
                    Think about it. App Store #1 takes a 30% cut, so the developer sets a certain price for their product, then App Store #1 adds 30% and I, the consumer, end up paying 30% more for the app.
                    Now, with competition, App Store #2 might say "hey, we want to attract developers, so our cut is 15%" - and then I, the consumer, would have the option to pay only 15% more for the same app.

                    In the PC space, there's, for example, isthereanydeal.com - check it out,

              • The lawsuit is not about the cut. Zero of the claims are about it, and the complaint says they have no problem paying for services provided.

                All ten of the complaints are about monopoly abuse and antitrust concerns.

                Apple is desperate to redefine the market.

                If the market is Apple phones the monopoly abuse is clear. The hardware is bound to their software. They forbid software that competes. They forbid software that can bypass their distribution network. They forbid financial transactions that don't give them

              • For Apple's 30% you get publishing, hosting, distribution, promotion, credit card processing

                Be honest, Apple isn't going to promote you.

        • Is Steam the only place to get software on the device it's installed on?

          Nope, and not at all relevant to what I said. But that strawman is a whole lot easier for you to talk about.

          Epic's primary complaint is Apple gets a cut of the sales.

          Valve utterly dominates PC gaming, and gets a cut of the sales.

          Also, the fact that other options exist doesn't mean Valve is completely in the clear. See: Microsoft, and the fact that Firefox existed when they were sued and lost.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • because nobody in their right mind would argue Steam has a monopoly and try to sue them, despite it having a huge competitive advantage.

          They utterly dominate PC game distribution. Even EA is giving up on building out a competitor. You could make an Internet Explorer-like case against them, even though Firefox and others existed.

          But that's not the issue. Epic's primary complaint is Apple takes a cut of sales. Valve takes a cut of sales. Apple would like to show that the cut they are taking is normal in the industry, and Valve is basically all that's left of "the industry" that Epic hasn't sued.

          • Shit, I would take a cut of the sales if you'd publish through my shitty theoretical PC app store. That's not enough of an argument to subpoena my ass.

          • The difference is that you can choose to distribute through Steam, paying Valve for the benefits of distributing through Steam, or choose some other method to sell to PC gamers. With Apple, it's either you pay Apple their cut or be denied the iOS market entirely. Or another way of looking at it, if Epic could distribute their game to iOS devices outside of the App Store, just like how Epic distributes their games outside of Steam to PC users, then Epic would have never sued Apple in the first place.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cederic ( 9623 )

              or choose some other method to sell to PC gamers

              Not even that. It's 'and choose' rather than 'or choose'.

              Most games available on Steam are also available for purchase from other store fronts and sites. Many games on Steam are available to buy in an entirely Steam-independent form.

              Microsoft and Epic have "exclusive" games that they don't sell on Steam. Valve have "exclusive" games that are only available on Steam. The bulk of the market is however wide open and developers and publishers can choose where and how to sell their works.

              Which is not how things

            • Lemme just quote myself again, and you might read it this time.

              Epic's primary complaint is Apple takes a cut of sales. Valve takes a cut of sales. Apple would like to show that the cut they are taking is normal in the industry, and Valve is basically all that's left of "the industry" that Epic hasn't sued.

      • Yes, Apple is trying to make it an argument about costs and revenue. That is their only hope, to confuse the issue.

        The lawsuit is about monopoly use and forbidding competing products by way of monopoly power. None of the ten claims are about the percentage charged. None of the ten charges were about any market other than Apple phones.

        Apple desperately wants to move the position away from antitrust law. They clearly have the monopoly over the ecosystem and they forbid Apple hardware from using anything that

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      Not only that, but I can load a game on a PC and completely bypass Steam, so it's not even slightly comparable.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      I miss BadAnalogyGuy around here.

    • It seems normal. Lawyers will request as much information as they can; Valve can and have objected to the amount of information.

    • Yes, it's insane.

      Basically, "We want every metric and bit of paper on everything your company has ever done since the day you opened your doors."

      This isn't discovery, this is planetary conquest.

  • Steam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:11AM (#61079782)

    You are free to offer your Windows game on Steam or not. Or in and outside of Steam. So I don't see Apple's point here. Steam could charge a 80% fee, it would still not be an argument for Apple to force its 30% tax on Epic.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jma05 ( 897351 )

      That is a completely valid point.
      But I would still love to see what Valve is making, lawsuit aside.

    • They might be looking to show that Steam provides a valuable service by charging a fee, which would imply that Apple also provides a valuable service while charging a fee.

      Apple doesn't have a strong legal argument that they are not violating the law (note that Epic doesn't have a strong legal argument they are breaking the law. That's the nature of antitrust law: it's highly ambiguous). Their lawyers are desperate to come up with something that will clearly vindicate them, because if they can, they will win

      • "They might be looking to show that Steam provides a valuable service by charging a fee, which would imply that Apple also provides a valuable service while charging a fee."

        No, it would not. Valve is not Apple. Valve's service is substantially different from Apple's. They don't even claim to offer the same benefits that Apple claims, at least in the main. There is no walled garden at Valve.

        • Of course I agree with you from a factual/reality-based/equitable viewpoint, but the law makes up its own rules. This preliminary ruling does a good job showing the tasks faced by each party [casetext.com]. For example:

          " the record does not yet establish how the "relevant market" should be defined. Without a definition of the relevant market, the existence of market power—the foundation of a monopolization claim—cannot be assessed. Accordingly, Epic Games has not yet shown that it will likely succeed on the merits of the monopolization claim."

          Defining "relevant market" seems straightforward, but it is not, and there are specific rules to be followed in the legal way of defining it (you can search for that quote and read the previous text if it seems interesting).

          • If iOS is a monopoly, so too is any individual console. If I were Sony, MS, or Nintendo I would be paying very close attention.

            • The laws of monopolies are strange and capricious. Therefore it is impossible to make that conclusion at this point.

            • It's still different. You can buy a boxed Xbox or Playstation game on a physical disc in any game store (yes, they still exist, isn't it?). You could argue that the MS or Sony tax is already included into the game price. Apple gives the SDK for free, but forces a 30% tax on any application/game sold. The model is different, but it could be argued that Apple's behavior is even more anti-competitive.

      • They might be looking to show that Steam provides a valuable service by charging a fee, which would imply that Apple also provides a valuable service while charging a fee.

        If their service is so valuable, they shouldn't fear allowing 3rd party app stores / easy sideloading. Because well, you get much more value than the cost of this 30% tax... I mean, fee. Right?

    • And what tax is that? You mean the same one that Steam has? By your own argument: "You are free to offer your game on iOS or not. Inside or outside of iOS"

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by damien_kane ( 519267 )

        And what tax is that? You mean the same one that Steam has? By your own argument: "You are free to offer your game on iOS or not. Inside or outside of iOS"

        Except you are not free to offer your game or application (or store) to any iOS user except by the grace of Apple.
        Epic is proposing that Apple has an unlawful monopoly in that they won't let Epic on the their platform (any off-the-shelf iOS device) without giving Apple a cut of their revenues.
        This is not the case on a PC or Android phone;
        The manufacturers (Dell, Samsung, etc) are not trying to stop users from installing EGS (or Steam, or GOG) on the PCs or phones they sell, or force EGS to give them a cut o

      • And what tax is that? You mean the same one that Steam has? By your own argument: "You are free to offer your game on iOS or not. Inside or outside of iOS"

        You really don't get it.
        You are free to offer your PC game inside or outside Steam. If you want to offer your game on the iPhone, you have to pay the 30% Apple tax, because Apple locks-down iPhones.

  • "BFF Valve can explainzzz" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cloud.pt ( 3412475 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:15AM (#61079790)

    Valve's conundrum in this front is exactly the same Apple has on their fight against Epic: they don't want developers and publishers to take their margin from digital content stores. The one difference is Valve never had to fight this issue, since data has always been hidden, and they've been doing even before the days of big data and corpo privacy concerns. I honestly call BS that Valve doesn't store all of this information, but why would they be giving it away to solve someone else's problem. Are you telling me Steam collects anonymised hardware data and releases it like every other quarter, and doesn't keep track of their own sales and pricing and whatnot? Right...

    OTOH it's obvious this data belongs to Valve, and Valve can't really give it away when it's the kind of information you really want airtight. It affects their business to the point they even harass third parties that just snoop this data to let savvy consumers know if a sale price is actually a good price, or if a particular game is coming to their platform a bit sooner. Much like Amazon has no love for camelcamelcamel or tropicalprice for screwing with their Big Data-based pricing schemes, Valve has no love for letting the Big Data they use to maximize profits, even if ultimately, this could hurt a competitor (Epic) in a fight against an actual partner (Apple, because Steam may not run on iOS but they do use MacOS as a Steam platform).

    I think Apple is reaching, and doing so in a "hey look, my dear friends at Valve here can explain why Apple wants to be greedy, and explain why they also take away this big chunk of profit from original developers and publishers! These guys will prove that it's perfectly fine and they've had this (not very consumer friendly) practice of being a no-value-added middleman for decades now!" - and Valve obviously doesn't want to shoot itself in the foot. Imagine if all Steam users figured they could have spent way, WAY less money for games since Steam took off in the days of CS1.6... It would seriously hurt Steam's brand.

    • Re:"BFF Valve can explainzzz" (Score:5, Informative)

      by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:17AM (#61079798) Homepage

      No, the key difference is that Valve has never had to fight this issue, because they are only one storefront for the platforms they support. They do not tie hardware or OS buyers to their storefront, to the exclusion of all their prospective competitors. Both users and game developers can easily use a Steam competitor.

      • Just because another option exists does not mean that option is equally viable. See: The cases Microsoft lost regarding Internet Explorer, despite the fact that Firefox existed.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          There are at least two notable differences there: Microsoft had to stop illegally tying Internet Explorer to Windows, and Microsoft never even tried to prevent competing web browsers from running on Windows. Apple does both of those things. Valve does neither of them.

          • Microsoft never even tried to prevent competing web browsers from running on Windows.

            As long as they supported VBScript, ActiveX, and various IE-only "extensions" to standards, right.

            • Nonsense. Microsoft never tried to require competing browsers running on their platform to support those things. Meanwhile Apple outright prohibits any competing browser engines, which means they actually DO require other browsers to support whatever Apple's browser supports.

              Apple is literally worse than Microsoft used to be.

              Of course, Microsoft is still up to as many of their old tricks as they can manage, plus making Windows the worst spyware on the planet, so they raised the bar. But they remain irreleva

          • Try reading that again.

            I'm saying Valve is Microsoft here: There's other options, but that doesn't necessarily mean Valve is safe.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Entrope ( 68843 )

              And I told you why Valve isn't like Microsoft with IE. There are fair reasons to criticize Valve, but they haven't done anything like either Apple or Microsoft in terms of monopoly; their dominant position has been earned, and they aren't abusing it. As others have pointed out, relevant to Apple's arguments, Fortnite is not on Steam -- simply because Epic doesn't want to pay the Steam tax.

        • I agree in general, though in the browser wars that was a different playfield really. That was "Windows bundling IE" which I'm not even sure how one would adapt that comparison. I guess it'd be if say, there were *one* major wireless provider and that provider bundled their service with iPhones and you'd have to actively seek out an Android to replace the iPhone you already have? Then you'd have to akin a particular Android line of phones to the largest competitor (Samsung probably?) to stand in Firefox/Moz

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by leonbev ( 111395 )

        "They do not tie hardware or OS buyers to their storefront, to the exclusion of all their prospective competitors."

        One small adjustment to that... Valve tried to tie their game sales to a specific platform with the release of their Steam Machine console. It failed miserably, as did the Steam OS that they developed for it. At least the attempt improved Linux support for mainstream gaming titles for a year or two.

        • One small adjustment to that... Valve tried to tie their game sales to a specific platform with the release of their Steam Machine console. It failed miserably, as did the Steam OS that they developed for it. At least the attempt improved Linux support for mainstream gaming titles for a year or two.

          No, they didn't. Even if their Steam console had taken off you would still have been able to play your games on your Windows machine.

    • More like Epic has sued us for monopoly but we have a small percentage of the entire market compared to Valve.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Maybe Valve noticed that Amazon is getting into antitrust difficulties because it does collect sales data on marketplace sellers and uses it to out-compete them.

  • Half-Life 3 when? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:32AM (#61079842)

    Will this disclose any findings or details about Half-Life 3?

  • Does anyone else notice Apple is using a lawsuit about shady business practice to perform more shady business practices? Apple most definitely just wants this information to determine if they should enter into the gaming markets. It has nothing to do with the lawsuit with Epic and everyone should realize that because of Steam not even being a mobile platform market. This court is incompetent for not seeing and realizing or even considering this. Valve shouldn't have handed SHIT over to Apple and should hav

  • Apple is full of shit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cryptimus ( 243846 ) on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:40AM (#61079888) Homepage

    Apple is attempting to assert that because you buy a phone from them, you can only buy software through them and for which they receive a 30% cut.

    Even more egregious, they want a cut of any money made by delivering content on that phone.

    That is the very definition of a monopoly. Imagine buying a car and only being able to use fuel from General Motors.

    Apple fanboys arguing against this are pathetic.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by ACForever ( 6277156 )
      Careful, post like this bring out all the apple shills that will claim you are an "apple hater" and therefore your entire post is wrong and therefore apple is once again; as always, correct and righteous in their divine wisdom.

    • Imagine buying a car and only being able to use fuel from General Motors.

      I would never buy such a car. If you have an issue with a well-known limitation placed on iDevices, you probably shouldn't buy one of those, either. You'd be making the same decision as 85% of consumers. [idc.com]

      • I would never buy such a car.

        Let's get away from bad car analogies and back to electronics.

        I feel the same way about the MBP being unfixable, so I don't buy one.

        Then I look at the PC market and see that 95-99% of all laptops require open heart surgery to replace the battery now because they saw Apple fanbois lap that shit up.

        We can keep waiting for change here or force the change. I prefer to force it since there are plenty of compelling national security and environmental issues that weigh in favor of forc

        • Then I look at the PC market and see that 95-99% of all laptops require open heart surgery to replace the battery now because they saw Apple fanbois lap that shit up.

          "The market spoke, and I didn't like what it said." That happens, sometimes. Making other people's preferences against the rules isn't a reasonable response.

          I'm curious what national security concerns you see arising from not being able to replace the battery on a MacBook, but I'll give you that there are environmental costs. I'd be in favor of a scheme to pass those costs along to consumers like the recycling deposit on an aluminum can.

    • No. In their battle where Epic has claimed abuse of monopoly powers, Apple is most likely going argue that their market for games is quite small compared to Valve or Epic. Also something that will be brought up is if consumers have a choice. If a game developer does not want to develop on iOS, do consumers have the ability to choose another platform. It would be helpful to know how many iOS consumers could play a game on Valve's Steam platform instead.
  • No Apple, it doesn't work that way. Prove your own damned case. As a layman this looks bad for Apple, they can't even prove their own business model is fair.
  • Pulling in Steam is a diversion. Apple is hoping that by stretching things out, the lack of income from iOS platforms will cause Epic to cave and will serve as a warning to anyone else thinking of challenging their "business model". Expecting this to get settled out of court to minimize the risk that it doesn't go Apple's way.

  • Actually, Epic dragged Steam into the fray. Apple is retaliating, using Steam. Steam should direct it's angst toward Epic.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Fembot ( 442827 )

      I think Valve's anger should be directed at Apple, but not for the reasons the article makes. It seems likely that if Valve thought they had a route to profitability on mobile platforms (for instance iOS) they would have had a go at it by now. Had they been able to use the steam mobile apps to quickly follow up with games distribution too then they'd probably have a large chunk of the mobile games publishing market cornered by now too. But there seems to be something stopping them and it's seems unlikely th

Slashdot Top Deals

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Close