Do us a favour and wipe out tomato town
Once you've finished listening to your fourteenth rendition of 'Chug Jug' you might send one up in prayer for the myriad of folk over in the fanbase for Fortnite, because a good many of them don't know what's going to happen to their favourite game. I mean, nothing's going to happen to it, so to speak; it's still the biggest game in the world and thus is hardly at the mercy of a slap fight like this, but certainly some of it's accessibility hangs in the balance. In fact, it doesn't really hang; it's been severed, and we're just waiting to hear whether or not it'll ever get patched up. This has really started to enter that fever pitch now that the actual trial has begun and we'll get to hear the possibly historic ruling on what Apple is allowed to do with their domination over their end of the mobile marketplace. Or, indeed, if that is even a domination at all. Legally speaking.
Of course, if everything I'm saying is fanciful nonsense to you, then here's a quick recap; Epic games have started a fight with Apple over the fact that Apple funnels developers into selling their apps soely through the Apple store and thus forces them to capitulate to, by Epic's definition, exploitative stipulations. A big cut of proceeds fly out of the pocket of developers and independent shops are strictly against TOS, every inapp purchase must go through Apple. Now for mobile developers this isn't too far from the ordinary, but console developers at least can start up a fuss about that cut, it's pretty bad compared to what's happening over on the rest of the industry. If Epic can prove what Apple is running is a monopoly, they could be looking at forcing the hand of Apple to change rules and improve the lives of App developers the world over, so Epic really is fighting on behalf of the little man here. (Even if it's not exactly for them)
Unfortunately, with the state of the world right now, we won't be seeing these stuffy money vampires dragged out of their hovels and into suits for an in-person trial, which is a shame because I personally dislike both sides of this little debate and would love to see them sweat it out a bit. (It's always funny watching these automatons try so hard to convince us they're still human and thus worthy of some sort of sympathy) In fact we're not even getting video interviews so can put a face to the vultures. Instead it's all just a telephoned-in conference with static voices in a dark abyss. How draconian. What is this: the nineteenfifties? I was specifically told that Video has committed some form of homicide against Radio; surely audio entertainment should be a dead art. Yet hear we are listening to poorly captured audio excerpts from journalists who called in keep track of deliberations, and to everyone involved's credit; it really was very entertaining.
For you see, instead of being treated to the mechanical fumbles of the court as they desperately tried to figure out how to get a three-way conference working, (software which has been in general circulation for over a decade now, but still people find ways to fudge it) we got the somewhat greater gift of courts who don't know how to run a listen-in call line. (In their defence, neither do I.) One reporter recalled being asked, through an automated system, upon calling in whether or not they wanted to join as a listener or an host. Just straight up, like that. And though they claimed to have chosen the righteous path from this choose-your-own-adventure minigame, it would appear there were a great many others far too tempted with the allure of unadulterated trolling. That's how a boring preliminary trail got interesting.
Steps like these are the basic of the basic, the formalities that make official what has already been discussed and disseminated at length through and from documents. Although they don't remain quite so standard and formal when you have voices from the random public chiming in to say things like, and I quote, "I would suck all of you to get back Fortnite mobile back". (Thank you, PCGamer, for making my day with that little gem) But that interruption wasn't an exception. People chimed in to scream things like "Bring back Fortnite on mobile please, Judge", "Free Fortnite" and, a wild card in the bunch, "Don't bring back Fortnite." Others just played Travis Scott songs, and one uninvited guest, during a moment of silence when the main lines went down and this lone fellow was suddenly struck with an almost divine moment of clarity, commented "I'm going to hell for this". Maybe; but you can tell Beelzebub how it was all worth it for this fleeting satisfaction!
Try as they might though, the hoards of thirteen year olds couldn't prematurely end this trial with an early win for Epic, and instead the court settled on the battlegrounds for what will shape up as a war of definitions. This here is going to be the Courts deciding if what Apple exerts over developers is monopolistic (and thus anti-competitive) or if they're operating well within their rights as the owner and creator of the infrastructure. (In order to remain consistent, Epic have filed a similar case against Google which will probably also get decided by this definition battle.) By Apple's reasoning what they do on this platform is no different from what Console developers do, and if Epic don't like it they are well within their capabilities to sell their game on another platform, thus proving Apple doesn't hold a monopoly. For the courts the key comes in deciding if they consider all platforms part of a single market, or if the definition of a market is narrower than that, thus trapping Apple. Quiet the genuine conundrum that I'm actually fascinated to follow, where would I fall on this from a purely legal approach? I truly do wonder.
Apple have something of an easier job in all this, they just have to make Epic look like incompetent bullies trying to strongarm their way into getting what they want. Which is... actually somewhat on the money. But that's still kind of the pot calling the kettle black, now ain't it? Epic may have founded it's store on trying to buy their way into gamer's hearts, but Apple have aggressively stamped out competition for years and remain one of the few still in the mobile business because of it. And yet, Apple wanted to use some negotiation between Epic and Sony over cross compatibility in Fortnite as their 'prime example'. In the correspondence, Sony threw a fit over the concept and wouldn't budge as Epic kept coming back with more and more concessions, showing, in Apple's eyes, how the guys won't take no for an answer and keep pushing until they hear what they want. Again, that's true; but it was Epic trying to push a stubborn mule to break ground which proved beneficial to the entire game's industry, so I really loathe this being weaponised against them. This is one of the few Epic stories I can unreservedly respect. (But how the courts will see it, I don't know)
There's ever this separation between the world of law and the world of... well, everyone else- and it makes legal entanglements like this delectably unpredictable. You never know which way the wind could be turning, and who's going to be stuck with egg on their face on the other end of this; because whilst I'm morally on the side of Epic here, they were the instigators and an offensive stance is inherently harder to win an argument on. At the end of the day, however, (and I know I come back to this often) this is two tech titans arguing over who can make the better pittance and neither really deserves their windfall; so though I await each development with a curious ear, I do so rooting for the indie devs out there. Let them get their cut for their hardwork, dammit, Apple you vampires!
No comments:
Post a Comment