Talk:Epic Games v. Apple

Epic Games v. Apple and Epic Games v. Google should be different pages

I am asking what it says on the title. This article mainly talks about the Apple one, with only a brief mention to the Google one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedista445 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Right now, there's almost nothing being said about the Google lawsuit. The only unique factor to it is the impact Google's licensing had on the LG/OnePlus loading stuff, but there's almost no sourcing about this in any depth, compared to Apple, in part that 1) people can still sideload Fortnite on Google or play it via Samsung phone, and 2) in mobile revenue, Epic earned far more from Apple players than Android ones. Maybe in the future there will be more to talk about the Google suit but really at this point it is a companion note onto the Apple suit which is drawing all the attention. --Masem (t) 17:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A lawyer's view and the ruling

Hoeg Law's channel (run by an actual lawyer) covered the case in detail (Epic v Apple: Just the Trial) and revealed just how badly the media reported what the ruling actually was. The formal 185 page ruling is called Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 and makes for some interesting reading.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have to go with reliable sources, and just because the person may be an expect (a lawyer even), self-published works are not considered reliable over the media sources here. --Masem (t) 13:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines for using self published sources that the channel would fill under is "The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims". Never mind that at time he is reading verbatim from official court documents which are reliable and a lawyer has more authority regarding the meaning of those documents than a layman (which is our other sources). The fact that as he points out there are many errors in reporting the case and its ruling by these sources raises questions of accuracy (Wikipedia:Inaccuracy).--174.99.238.22 (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Roblox

Where has Roblox been in this situation in the Wikipedia page? 110.5.69.167 (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The only place Roblox had come up was how games vs experiences were defined during the trial hearing, as to judge if Apple's store policies were being fairly applied. It is in the article. --Masem (t) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Roblox is mentioned in the original court's 185 page ruling (Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21): page 21 and 71. In any case what Roblox was seems to have no baring on how the original court ruled. The Verge had In Epic V Apple, Everybody Is Losing At The Game Of Defining Games shows why the whole thing was a mess.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Epic's cases with Apple and with Google (2023)

Now that Epic Games's court cases went into different outcomes and decisions, I don't see the point in having two court cases in one article. Am I missing something here? George Ho (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, a split is absolutely fine, just that we should have a page with more than one sentence to split out to, and there still needs to be a summary on this page. I myself just haven't had time to expand a potential page for this, and the first effort to do that was a single sentence, which wasn't a smart way to create and leave an article. Masem (t) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I am also believing that there should be a new page just for the Google decision since there are now enough differences in facts and law and procedures. This is not a minute amount of work but if someone takes the lead I can help with the sources and the editing. Jorahm (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the case with Google should be split into its own article, and I'll be glad to help with the split. — Newslinger talk 04:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Newslinger I pledge to help if this ever happens. ItsCheck (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)