Disagree. It is blatantly better for consumers if Epic win. Walled gardens are anti-consumer.
How many times have I heard this one?
Oh let's see.. with digital media...
"Yeah guys, getting rid of physical media for digital will be better for consumers and cheaper overall!"
Meanwhile, in the real world, prices have only gone up, content has become more limited, and none of it has been for the benefit of consumers.
Oh, what about streaming being better than owning the product?
"Yeah guys, streaming makes it so that you don't have to download all those large files anymore. It'll be cheaper and better for consumers in the long run!"
Meanwhile, in the real world, streaming has allowed companies to retroactively censor old content, as well as force-feed content onto users that they don't want. Lack of ownership and rise of subscription-based models also ensures that you'll be paying for service access forever, with zero long-term benefits for the end-user (i.e., see Microsoft 360 suite).
Someone talked about the long-term negative effects if Epic wins against Apple, but I can't recall what those effects are off the top of my head.
I think this article sort of highlights the broader reaching effects if Epic does win: https://www.wired.com/story/epic-apple-lawsuit-one-legal-question/
I believe one of the counterarguments is that this will also affect other proprietary distribution and social media platforms in terms of what is and isn't allowed on their platform. With Epic being bank-rolled by Tencent, I imagine there's a long-game to this stunt for the CCP in terms of what they want on the market (or don't want on the market).
But Kaarous is right, no matter who wins the consumers don't. The CCP has never had consumer interests in mind, and Apple is all about controlling the ecosystem of software they put on the market.
Based on who is involved in this lawsuit, there is no outcome where consumers actually benefit.
EDIT: Oh, I just remembered! Someone brought up Nintendo. Nintendo runs a walled garden for their hardware/software as well. Opening up companies to force acceptance of software without costs would mean that platforms that carefully curate their software, such as Nintendo, could fall afoul of the ruling (depending of how it goes). One person commented that it could mean that forcing acceptance of certain kinds of software might make some platforms more susceptible to propaganda-laden content, user information access by third-party developers (or in this case, the CCP), as well as other invasive properties.
Disagree. It is blatantly better for consumers if Epic win. Walled gardens are anti-consumer.
How many times have I heard this one?
Oh let's see.. with digital media...
"Yeah guys, getting rid of physical media for digital will be better for consumers and cheaper overall!"
Meanwhile, in the real world, prices have only gone up, content has become more limited, and none of it has been for the benefit of consumers.
Oh, what about streaming being better than owning the product?
"Yeah guys, streaming makes it so that you don't have to download all those large files anymore. It'll be cheaper and better for consumers in the long run!"
Meanwhile, in the real world, streaming has allowed companies to retroactively censor old content, as well as force-feed content onto users that they don't want. Lack of ownership and rise of subscription-based models also ensures that you'll be paying for service access forever, with zero long-term benefits for the end-user (i.e., see Microsoft 360 suite).
Someone talked about the long-term negative effects if Epic wins against Apple, but I can't recall what those effects are off the top of my head.
I think this article sort of highlights the broader reaching effects if Epic does win: https://www.wired.com/story/epic-apple-lawsuit-one-legal-question/
I believe one of the counterarguments is that this will also affect other proprietary distribution and social media platforms in terms of what is and isn't allowed on their platform. With Epic being bank-rolled by Tencent, I imagine there's a long-game to this stunt for the CCP in terms of what they want on the market (or don't want on the market).
But Kaarous is right, no matter who wins the consumers don't. The CCP has never had consumer interests in mind, and Apple is all about controlling the ecosystem of software they put on the market.
Based on who is involved in this lawsuit, there is no outcome where consumers actually benefit.