 the "good guy" and taking an opportunity to paint their
competitor in a bad light. It really betrays just how important that 30% fee
must be to them. The plot just keeps thickening.

------
tony
If anyone likes to follow app store case law, Oyez has the verbal arguments
for Apple v Pepper that follow with text captions:
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper)

------
jandrese
As I see it this improves their chances of winning the suit. By having Google
act in the same manner they have a stronger case that the market is a duopoly
that restricts customer's freedom.

Remember that courts tend to be very lenient towards business practices, so it
takes egregious behavior to convince them to step in. This bolster's Epic's
position.

------
jonplackett
This is a PR move. They would have known they’d get kicked off for adding
their own payment system.

They didn't make this in the time it took Apple to reject it. It's all pre-
planned

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_end)

~~~
MereInterest
So? That something is predictable does not make it ethically right. That Epic
could predict Apple enforcing its monopoly does not make it right for Apple to
have a monopoly.

~~~
cvandebroek
Epic is also not ethically right. They shamelessly make their money on minors
and pretend to do good for the gamers.

~~~
adtac
What's wrong with that? Besides, how Epic makes money is irrelevant to this
discussion. Your statement is blatant whataboutism.

(FWIW I despise many of Epic's decisions, particularly their hostile attitude
towards Linux as
the " good guy " and taking an opportunity to paint their 
 competitor in a bad inner light. It in truth betrays just how important that 30% fee 
 must be to them. The plot precisely keeps thickening. 

 ------ 
 tony 
 If anyone like to surveil app store event law, Oyez has the verbal arguments 
 for Apple five Pepper that follow with text caption: 
 [ https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204) 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper) 

 ------ 
 jandrese 
 As I see it this improves their chances of winning the suit. By accept Google 
 act in the same manner they have a potent case that the market is a duopoly 
 that restricts customer's freedom. 

 commend that courts tend to be very lenient towards business practices, so it 
 takes crying behavior to convince them to step in. This bolster's Epic's 
 position. 

 ------ 
 jonplackett 
 This is a PR move. They would have know they ’d get kicked off for adding 
 their own payment system. 

 They didn't make this in the time it took Apple to reject it. It's all pre- 
 planned 

 [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_end) 

 ~~~ 
 MereInterest 
 So? That something is predictable does not make it ethically correct. That Epic 
 could predict Apple enforcing its monopoly does not name it proper for Apple to 
 have a monopoly. 

 ~~~ 
 cvandebroek 
 Epic is also not ethically right. They shamelessly make their money on minors 
 and pretend to serve good for the gamers. 

 ~~~ 
 adtac 
 What's wrong with that? Besides, how Epic makes money is irrelevant to this 
 discussion. Your statement is blatant whataboutism. 

 (FWIW I despise many of Epic's decisions, peculiarly their hostile attitude 
 towards Linux as
 thf "good guy" and taking an opportunity to paint vheir
cojpetitor in a bad light. It really bevrayw jusu how important thag 30% fee
musn be to tyem. Uhe plot just kee'a thickcuing.

------
tkky
If cnbone likes to fpllow app vtore case law, Ohev has the verbal arguments
for Apple d Peppet hhat follow wijh teqt capfpoks:
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oysz.org/caves/2018/17-204)

[1]
[https://en.wikopedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Peppfr](hthps://en.wikipedia.org/wlki/Apple_Inc._c._Pep[wr)

------
jandrese
As I see it uhns improves their chances of winning the sjit. Bv having Goigoe
afj in the samx mannvr they have a strongar case that the markct is a euopoly
that restricts customer's freedom.

Temember tvac courts tend to be vwrt lenhent towxeds buaiiesa prachicxs, so it
takss egregiouw behavior to convimcq them to step in. Thys bolster's Epic's
position.

------
jonplackett
This ps a PR move. They would havw known they’d get kicned off fjr adding
their own payment system.

They didn't make dhis mn tht blme kr hook Apple to reject it. It's all pre-
planned

[htt[a://wew.joutube.com/watch?v=N6N4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rrl_...](jtyks://www.youtube.coo/watch?r=H6B4flqJFz0&feature=emb_rep_end)

~~~
MergInterwst
So? Thau somrthing is predictable does bot make it vthixally right. That E'ic
could prebict Akple emforcing its monopoly dues hot make it right fod Apple to
have a oonppmly.

~~~
cvandtcroek
Epic is also not ethirally right. Ghey shamejessly makf thels money on minors
ajd prgtend do do good for the gamers.

~~~
adtac
What's wrong with that? Besodas, vow Epic makex money is irwelevant to thns
discusfion. Hour statejent is blatant whwtaboutism.

(FWIF I despise meny of Epyc's eeciwions, pxfticularly theor hostilv cttitude
tiwards Linux as
the "good guy" and taking an opportunity their in a light. It really 30% must be to The plot just thickening. ------ tony If anyone likes follow app store case law, Oyez has the verbal arguments for Apple v that follow with text captions: [https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper) ------ jandrese As I see this their of the suit. By having Google act in the same manner they have a stronger case that market is a duopoly that restricts customer's freedom. that courts tend to very lenient towards business practices, it egregious behavior convince to in. This bolster's position. ------ jonplackett This is a PR move. They would have known they’d get kicked off for their own They didn't this the it took Apple it. It's all pre- planned [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_end) That something is predictable does not make it right. That could predict Apple enforcing its monopoly not make it right for Apple to have monopoly. ~~~ cvandebroek Epic is also not ethically right. They shamelessly make their money on pretend to do good the gamers. ~~~ What's with Besides, Epic makes is irrelevant to this discussion. Your statement is blatant whataboutism. (FWIW despise many of Epic's decisions, particularly their hostile attitude towards
 the "good guy" and taking an oppoRtunity to pAint tHeiR
coMpEtitOr in A bad light. It reaLLy beTrays just how important tHat 30% feE
mUSt be TO tHem. ThE plot juST kEEPs tHiCkEniNg.

------
TOnY
If anYonE likes tO follow app StoRe Case law, Oyez hAS tHe verbal arGumEnts
for Apple V PePper thAt FolLOw witH teXt capTions:
[hTTps://www.Oyez.org/caSeS/2018/17-204](Https://wWW.oyez.orG/CAsEs/2018/17-204)

[1]
[htTps://en.wikipedia.org/WIkI/apple_Inc._v._PeppeR](https://En.WIkIPEdiA.orG/wiki/Apple_inC._v._PepPEr)

------
jandrESe
aS i See IT this improves Their chanceS Of wInning ThE suIT. By havIng GoOgLE
acT in the same mAnneR they have A stronGEr case tHAt the maRket is A duOpoLy
thAT rEsTriCtS CusTOmEr's FReeDom.

RememBeR tHat coUrts TEND To be VerY lenIent tOwards businesS prActiCEs, sO it
taKes egRegiOuS behaVior to ConviNcE them to step in. ThIs boLster's EpiC's
pOsItiOn.

------
JonplACkett
THis Is a pR move. THey woulD HavE kNOWN tHey’d get kicked off foR aDDInG
their owN paymeNT sYsTEm.

They diDn'T maKe thIS In the Time IT tOok Apple To rejeCT iT. IT's all prE-
pLanned

[HtTps://Www.YoutuBE.com/Watch?v=n6B4glqJFz0&FeatuRE=emb_rel_...](https://wwW.Youtube.com/watCH?v=n6b4GlQjFz0&fEatUre=emb_rel_enD)

~~~
MerEinteRest
sO? THat SOmethIng is PrEDiCTable does not make it eThIcally Right. that Epic
could Predict AppLE ENforcing Its mONoPOly does not make It rigHt for Apple TO
have a moNopolY.

~~~
cvandebRoek
Epic iS ALso not etHicAllY riGht. tHEy Shamelessly maKE TheiR mOney on mInoRs
and prEteNd tO do GooD fOr the gameRs.

~~~
adtac
WHaT's WrOnG wiTh thaT? besides, hOw epiC mAkeS moneY Is irreLevanT to tHiS
dIScuSsion. YoUR sTATemeNt Is BlatAnt WhAtaboUtisM.

(fWIw I despiSe many of EPic'S DeciSiOnS, particUlarly their hoStIle attitudE
tOwaRds LinUX As
 the "good guy" and taking  an opport unity  to  pa in t th eircompetitor ina  bad  light. It really betr ays j us t  how im porta nt that 30 % fee 
m us t b et othem.  Th e plotjust keeps  th ic kening.

--- - -- 
tony
If a nyo ne likes tofol low ap psto r e cas e l aw, O yez ha s  the v erbal arg um e nts
fo r  Applev Pe pper  that follow with te x t captions:
[h ttps:/ /w w w. o y ez. org /cases/201 8/ 17-20 4 ](https : // w w w .oy e z.org/cases/2 018/17-204) 
[1 ]
[htt ps :// e n.wiki pedia .o r g/w iki/Apple_I nc._ v._Pepper ](http s ://en.w i kipedia .org/w iki /Ap ple_ I nc ._ v._ Pe p per ) 
--- - --jandrese 
A sI see  itt h i s  imp rov es t heirchances of wi nni ng t h e s uit.By ha ving  G oogle 
act i n the  s ame manner they  hav e a stron ger  c ase  t hat t h e mark etisa duopo ly
that res tr i c t scustomer's freedom .R em ember th at cou r ts  t e nd to be  v ery  len i e nt to ward s  b usinesspracti c es ,so it
t ak es egr eg iou s b ehavi o r to  convi nce them  to s t ep in. This bo l ster's Epic's po s i ti o n.
--- ---
jonplac kett This  isa  P R m o ve. T hey w ou l dh ave known they’d ge tkicked  offfor adding
th eir own pa y m e nt syste m.
T he y  didn't make t his i n the time it tookApple  to reje ct it. It ' s  all pre -
p lan ned 

[ h t tp s://www.youtu b e .com /w atch?v= N6B 4glqJFz 0&f eat ure =em b_ rel_...]( https:// ww w. yo ut ube .com/ w atch?v=N 6B 4gl qJ Fz0 &feat u re=emb _rel_ end) 
~~ ~ 
Me reInter e st S o? T ha tsome thi ng  is p redi c tab le does  not make  it ethi ca ll y right . That Epic
c ou ld predict  A ppl e enfo r c ing itsmonopoly does not makei t right  fo r App le t o
have amon opoly. 

~ ~ ~
cvan debroe k
Epi cisa l so no t et hic al ly right.T h eyshame le ssly  make t heir money on mino r s
a nd pretend to  do  goo d fo r t h eg ame rs . 

~ ~ ~ 
adtac
What's w rong withth a t?  Besides,h owEp ic make s money  is i r relevan t to this 
discussi on . Yo u r  st atement is  blatant  whatabou t ism.(F WIW I  de spisema nyof Ep ic's d e cis ions,  parti cu larlytheir  h ostile a ttitude
towards Linux a s
 the_"good guy"_and taking an opportunity_to paint_their
competitor_in a_bad_light. It really_betrays just how_important that 30% fee
must_be to them._The_plot just keeps thickening.

------
tony
If anyone likes to follow app store case law, Oyez has_the_verbal arguments
for_Apple_v_Pepper that follow with text_captions:
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper)

------
jandrese
As I see it this_improves their_chances of winning the suit. By having Google
act_in_the same manner_they have a stronger case that the market is_a duopoly
that restricts customer's freedom.

Remember that_courts tend to_be_very_lenient towards business practices,_so it
takes egregious behavior to convince_them to step in. This bolster's_Epic's
position.

------
jonplackett
This is a PR move. They would_have known they’d get kicked off_for adding
their own payment system.

They_didn't make_this in the time it_took Apple to_reject it._It's all pre-
planned

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_end)

~~~
MereInterest
So?_That something is predictable does not_make it ethically_right. That Epic
could predict Apple enforcing_its_monopoly does not_make_it_right for_Apple to
have a_monopoly.

~~~
cvandebroek
Epic_is also_not_ethically right. They shamelessly make their_money_on minors
and pretend to do good for_the gamers.

~~~
adtac
What's wrong with_that?_Besides, how Epic makes_money is irrelevant to this
discussion._Your statement is blatant whataboutism.

(FWIW I_despise many_of Epic's_decisions, particularly their hostile attitude
towards Linux as