Did the Supreme Court Just Kill Console Games? A Lawyer Reads Apple Inc v Pepper (VL56)

It’s rare th&#1072t w&#1077 read through Supreme Court cases here &#959n Virtual Legality, b&#965t wh&#1077n th&#1077 implications &#1072r&#1077 &#1072&#1109 potentially significant &#1072&#1109 those &#1110n today’s holding &#1110n …


8 комментариев к Did the Supreme Court Just Kill Console Games? A Lawyer Reads Apple Inc v Pepper (VL56)

  • Thanks over again for watching, and please do like, subscribe, comment, and share! It goes such a long way to growing the channel and is very much appreciated!

  • On consoles you can still buy physical media, you CANT do this on iOS. Neither can you side load apps like on Android. Hell Apple won't even let you change the defualt apps. If that's not monopolistic idk what is.

  • One thing that should be remembered is that Apple does have a lot of control over the prices that are charged in the app store. If you look closely at the prices in the store it should be noticed that they all follow a set pattern that starts at $0.99 (using USD) and increases in $1 increments. That is because apple forces the developers to charge certain amounts for the app. So if a developer thought that an app was worth $0.50 they would either have to chose to give it away for free or to charge $0.99 meaning they are not able to charge what they reckon it is worth. Another model would be if you had two similar apps they would not be able to lower the fee they charge outside of set amounts in order to better compete.


  • Console games will be fine. The supreme court did a excellent thing here by ruling in favor of people rather than greedy corporations (for once)

  • If I go to buy A Plague Tale digitally through Xbone's store and am redirected to an Xbone buy portal set up by Focus Home Interactive I reckon that could be a excellent thing for 3rd have fun publishers and devs.

    If Apple and the like are going to change the language of their contracts, then putting more onus on 3rd have fun software dealers to complain about percentages (rather than consumers taking the battle on) doubtless isn't a terrible thing.

    Though it does seem muddy to say purchasers were hurt by this 30% (or whatever other theoretical amount) when perhaps the 3rd have fun would have charged that amount anyway.

    As a purchaser of this entertainment, but, I am pleased when those dollars are going (less indirectly) to the developer.

    Of course, that's not to say that Epic are some special heroes over Valve; I reckon that Epic, Valve, and Apple (and Nintendo, and Sony, and Microsoft, etc. etc.), should all be held to the same scrutiny and not given passes when they toss a bone one way or another.

  • On the third point at 38:00 isn't the court trying to say that companies could set up a pricing structure everywhere it's impossible to sue anyone due to the Illinois Brick case ? With Illinois Brick affirming you can't sue someone unless you are a direct purchaser and then this case possibly affirming that you can't sue unless they set the prices. Unless this choice also makes the Illinois Brick desicion defunct companies could set up a situation everywhere they have protection from both sides. The retailer would able to contend they can't be sued due to not setting prices, and the manufacturer would be able to contend they can't be sued as you are not a direct purchaser.

  • Apple is at flaw for prices to a degree because of the cut they take (30%?). How ever much of a cut they take means the dev needs to sell more (relative to 0%) to make back what was spent on the creation of a game. You can look at Steam vs Epic. Devs can choose putting a game on epic to make more (or sell at lower without making less) for no extra work.

  • Rip in peace console gamers, PCs will by no means forget your sacrifice

Оставить комментарий




Вы можете использовать эти HTML тэги

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>