Epic doesn't deserve any sympathy and won't get any from me.,(reply>), Pradhumn Kanase I'm not sure how I was contradicting myself. My point about 3rd party websites was based entirely on your point about browser games. My assertion was that Apple have no legal responsibility to ensure the safety of service that isn't run by them, so browser games are a poor example on your end because Apple aren't going to block or remove something that isn't run by them, doesn't appear on something that is run by them, and has no affiliation to them. That's a fact and not a contradiction, and I only even touched on the topic because you brought it up. My point about Apple upholding their own standards and regulations within <b>their own service</b> , didn't change. I didn't contradict any point I had previously made. You mentioned an irrelevant topic, and I explained how it wasn't relevant and didn't make sense to mention it. And no, I'm in no way confused about <b>my usage</b> of the word 'hosting'. The means in which I used it is completely different to the context you are insinuating, and the way I used it is perfectly valid. You, in fact, contradicted yourself by trying to differentiate distribution platform and hosting in this context. An app distribution platform hosts apps (or if you want to be very specific, app packages) as downloads. App packages are stored on Apple's servers and they host the packages on their App Store (a distribution platform) so that users can download the apps from Apple servers, and yes, that is hosting, as the app's files are stored on Apple's servers. That was pretty clear by the context in which it was used, but I'm happy to explain nonetheless. And yes, I'm fully aware of the fact that there is a difference between between a payment scam and malware. What exactly is your point? It really doesn't matter which one an app or in app service is. Apple, by <b>hosting the download on their platform</b> , would be legally complicit in any illegality of the app, as Apple would be the one responsible for distributing malware or a scam to the end user. Disclaimer or no disclaimer, if a payment scam was occurring in an app, on the Apple App Store, Apple could be questioned as to why they were <b>hosting the app's files and package for users to download, knowing that it was harmful to the end user.</b> And frankly, irrespective of legal problems, it is simply a means of consistency by Apple. They claim to provide a safe and secure service by allowing the sale of, allowing the in-app purchases within and verifying the integrity of apps <b>they host the download for</b> on their platform. And that is the key reason why a disclaimer would not be legal protection or even an assurance to users. In fact, by placing a disclaimer, they would be breaking a law. Apple, by rigorously verifying apps and ensuring their safety to the end user, and stating their safety outright, could be accused of false advertising if they placed a safety disclaimer, as it would undermine their claims of safety and security. Apple do not host these apps servers. I didn't claim they did. Of course they don't. But by providing a means for users to obtain the apps, by <b>hosting the app downloads on their store</b> , and by claiming the safety of apps on their store, Apple are required to uphold the safety specifications they claim, by whatever means. You have also not explained why it is anti-competitive. Apple's actions do not impact a developer's ability to use their platform. Banning an app from <b>their distribution platform on which they host the app download</b> is not anti-competitive. All it does is stagnate competition (which is not anti-competitive, because the stagnation of competition would be as a result of developers <b>choosing not to use Apple</b> , that would have nothing to do with Apple outright blocking competition) and variety within their own platform which serves no benefit to them, as all it does is drive users away from Apple products if they can't get their favourite app on them. That is the complete opposite of a monopoly. They are only anti-competitive towards themselves, as all they are doing is driving users to find and use one of the many alternatives. It is not anti-competitive because anyone publishing an app on their store is fully aware of Apple's ToS, and are aware of the risk of termination if said ToS are broken or circumvented. By using <b>apple's content distribution service</b> to <b>host your app download</b> you agree to pay any fees charged by Apple (which are incredibly transparent). You agree to Apple's right to terminate you without notice if you violate their rules and regulations. Apple harming and driving away their own fan base is in no way anti-competitive. It is the complete opposite. <b>People do not have to use Apple. People who use Apple are aware of Apple's penny pinching and self-serving nature. People are aware that Apple can terminate any app, at any period of time, if it violates their terms of service. If you do not like these facts, use another service</b> . Apple upholds these facts for everybody that develops for its platform. That is not anti-competitive because they do not discriminate unfairly against certain apps which they view to be competition. Apple's aggressive, corporate nature indirectly promotes competition by irritating people enough to find an alternative service. One which they believe is more fair. Apple is not anti-competitive and Apple is not a monopoly, because Apple are not even close to being the only available service. Their ruthlessness doesn't affect the ability of developers and consumers to use something else, something that will likely have the same measures in place that Apple does, albeit likely less transparent than even Apple, due to not being criticised in the same way. Apple do not prevent growth and development. They promote it, albeit not intentionally, by making people want to use something else.,(reply>), Regardless of whether or not Epic has any ground to stand on/has a case worth arguing about, weaponizing and radicalizing children for the sole purpose of padding their profit margin is <b>the</b> most despicable and immature thing possible a company can do, right above using child labor.<br><br>The fact that they had 60ish page legal documents for both Apple and Google as well as a fairly polished animation at the ready should draw a lot of criticism.,(reply>), @TheDarkSide11891  you are contradicting yourself so much. Also you seem to be confused between app hosting and app distribution platform. Apple does not host any app (except for the ones that they have created). The hosting is done by the app of 3rd party hosting sites. <br>There is a difference between app being destructive and payment method being a scam. <br>So you said it "If somebody gets ripped off by purchases on a website that has no affiliation to Apple, Apple don't have to be concerned about legal repercussions because they aren't hosting that content." Apple isn't hosting fortnite, or HEY, or any browser so they should not block other payment methods, yeah they can give a disclaimer but blocking completely if very anti competitive.,(reply>), i don't give a shit, anyone who tries to take a bite out of apple is cool in my book.,(reply>), Pradhumn Kanase But it isn't Apple's job to moderate content outside of their own services. If somebody gets ripped off by purchases on a website that has no affiliation to Apple, Apple don't have to be concerned about legal repercussions because they aren't hosting that content. On Apple's own App Store however, it is their duty to ensure the validity of any content hosted on it, as it is their sole responsibility as the content provider to ensure that it is a legitimate service. The internet isn't hosted by Apple. Their App Store is, and therefore they would have to deal with legal repercussions of sketchy content on it. At the end of the day, it isn't anti competitive because we don't live in a world where Apple are the only mobile App Store. If Apple were the only company able to provide and host apps then yes it would be a monopoly, and yes it would be anti competitive, but there are a vast array of alternatives and it is on the end user to weigh up the pros and cons of each platform. Apple's staunch business practices don't affect the growth of platforms wholely independent to them. In fact, their aggressive stance could be beneficial to smaller platforms, because as public opinion sways away from Apple, consumers will look for alternatives, which as I said, there are plenty of. The only people really harmed by Apple's business model is themselves. Developers and users have no obligation to use Apple, and the more Apple drive people away from their company, the more they will suffer at their own hand. Don't get me wrong, it is within Apple's best interests to charge competitive rates, however, as it is their platform governed by their rules, they can charge whatever fees they want no matter how ridiculous. People would simply stop using them and publishing for them, and people who choose to publish apps, knowing full well of the fees Apple charge have no grounds for complaint, they simply don't have to publish apps for Apple.