Dispute between Epic Games And Apple The judge is engaged Ivonna Gonzalez Rogers (Yvonne gonzalez rogers). Last Friday, she approved a couple of preliminary decisions: so far Apple have the right not to restore access to Fortnite on the App Store, but cannot limit the work of Unreal Engine on iOS.
In addition Gonzales Rogers Gave additional comments. She noted that Sony, Microsoft And Nintendo control their platforms according to the same principles of a closed system as Apple. That is, hardware filling, operating system, digital store and intra -game purchases are subject exclusively to the owner of the platform.
And if so, then the outcome of the case "Epic against Apple"may mean" significant and serious consequences "for Sony, Microsoft And Nintendo, Concludes Gonzalez Rogers. Therefore, the final solution should be based on quality information and be well -balanced – the fate of closed systems as a business management model depends on it.
In court, lawyers Epic They say that the situation on the consoles is different: they say, Sony, Microsoft And Nintendo almost do not earn on the sales of prefixes, while Apple Makes a significant profit from each IPhone copy sold.
The final decision will not be announced soon-not earlier than May 2021.
October 12, 2020 K/DA will appear in all games in the universe League of Legends
October 12, 2020 rumor: Obsidian took up the next part of The Outer Worlds
Fortnite
The best comments
No way. Epic just wants to fuck money from the Apple platform for free, but does not want to quarrel with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
In court, EPIC lawyers say that the situation on the consoles is different: they say, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo almost do not earn on the sales of the prefixes, while Apple makes a significant profit from each IPhone copy sold.
I alone do not understand https://gamblingdata.net/casinos/magic-red-casino/ how this applies to the case? What does the profit for the sale of iPhones/consoles have to do with how much control the owner of the platform over the market should have for this platform?
Normal such legal terminology – "almost do not earn "," "Significant profit".
I wish the judge would have made the decision in the same terms: “It is very likely that the rights of Epic were slightly violated, but this. I oblige El to do something about it."
Damn postmodern! 🙂
In court, EPIC lawyers say that the situation on the consoles is different: they say, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo almost do not earn on the sales of the prefixes, while Apple makes a significant profit from each IPhone copy sold.
EPIC lawyers can declare anything, especially broadcasting hellish nonsense Timi Pork. In the real world, if EPIC is adjacent to Apple, then the next day Ubisoft, Activision, EA and all other major publishers around the world will loudly require Sony, MS and Nintendo the introduction of the same rules as will be for Apple. Well, yes: Epica of course, as dirty arrogant jackals, will immediately re -re -re -re -re -will and join all the other demanders. To someone, and to change the Epic and Timi-the norm of things is already.
Everything is simple – they have different models of earnings, risks and attitude to developers. What will happen if all games are deleted from the AppStore? Apple will receive a noticeable decrease in iPhone sales and Approre income, but this will not be critical for the entire platform in general. What will happen if PlayStation loses all games from third -party developers? She will just die.
In addition, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are kept not only for their games, but also for the multi -platform, often going to concessions or profitable offers. Many large publications _novable_ existence of consoles of competing consoles. Remember the exclusive multiplayer mode for COD? It was clearly not free.
So Tim is now protecting his income. If you push the same law on the consoles, they will simply die leaving a large market share and depriving exclusive contracts.
Considering that the entire conflict began with what share of sales the store should take for itself, then the question is, where the main profit of the platform holder is going on.
If 90% of the profit owner’s profit comes from 30% of the margin to the sale of games, then a decrease in the same margin, for example, to 12% can lead to the collapse of the platform.
At the same time, if the reverse ratio (90% from the sale of devices and 10% from the margin for the sale of products on the market), then the situation is the opposite – with a decrease in margin to 12%, the owner of the platform may hardly feel this.
Again, the example is extremely abstract, but the meaning is clear. In practice, all this must be considered and each platform itself must determine its margin, but here again – everywhere 30%, regardless of which platform and how it fulfills its duties. Which is also the goal for the Borba Epicians almost on all sites.
If the console from behind the piglet loses 30%, as if its window did not fly out into the street. For the rage of large corporations is expensive.
At the level of the system of behavior of the system, it is quite possible to bind.
If you assume that “business without abuse” must bring a certain income, then you lay this figure in a particular model of income realization.
EPIC claims that in the case of Apple, their income is already laid at the level of iron sale. And at the same time they are tearing the same percentage as everyone, and at the level of sale/monetization of applications.
T. e., As they say, "eat a fish, and do not choke with a bone".
While other companies from the list sell iron with less profit or even to their loss, in order to pay off it precisely on the sale/monetization of applications.
Perhaps such double attempts to earn can be interpreted as abuse of competition, I do not know – not strong in jurisprudence. But since Epic is trying, maybe some kind of potential path of pressure exists.
Another thing is that such a decrease in profit on different fronts is as if it is caused by the need for competition, as in the situation with the same Sony and the assumptions that they dropped the price after the release of the price of X Box Series X,
And in the case of Apple, the logic is opposite – since everything is rich everywhere, then, in theory, the market “accepts” it, buyers are satisfied. And it is not the fault of Apple that their users pay exorbitant goods, this is a solution to users.
Therefore, so far it seems to be more precisely on pressure from the perspective “Well, how is it, why do they have both here and here and it gets away! So you can lower it somewhere and it will be honest ". Although this contradicts logic – just such users of products.
That’s right, there is. And it is more disadvantageous than distribution through the figure. Retail eats more from profit. And this, not given the fact that Retail is simply less reliable and viable today, that for example, coronavirus has clearly demonstrated.
They take less from physical ones, it is necessary to give a part of the cost to retail at the same price of the goods as in the figure. And this is 15-20 percent.
Then the example of the console market is not suitable for describing the situation with Apple, since publishers have an alternative way to realize their products.
True, but the key argument of EPIC in court against Apple is the fact that the AppStore is the only place where you can sell applications for iOS. There is an alternative on the consoles, albeit less profitable. At least in the current generation, which did not switch to the figure completely, although it moves in this direction.
In addition Gonzales Rogers gave additional comments. She noted that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo manage their platforms according to the same principles of the closed system as the Apple -dimensor of this gonzales Rogers gave additional comments. She noted that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo manage their platforms according to the same principles of the closed system as Apple
And just so that all of the above does not happen, the lawyers of the epic and said that the consoles everything works wrong.
By the way, Sonya also does not only prefixes and they still have a lot of things.
So in that tsimes that if you compare the figure and retail, then for publishers the last method is not just not beneficial today, they are trying in every possible way to leave it. The same Epicians are not particularly eager to sell their V-Baks everywhere in retail, only in the largest retail chains in the USA and Canada.