What better demonstration could Epic possibly create of how the App Store leads to price increases?
Epic could still turn around and say "well, the price would be even lower if not for Sony and Microsoft," but I'm not sure how much they want to piss off the console manufacturers, who—all things considered—probably have more power as far as Epic is concerned.
The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence.
More than anything else, I see Epic's stunt as a wake-up call. It doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny—but, once you've scrutinized the situation, you can also find better demonstrations of the problem, such as Spotify.
V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself.
Right, but the only scarcity of the "good" is that which Epic creates. If more people have V-Bucks, then current skins are less exclusive and become less valuable. I don't think the cost of V-Bucks has an impact on consumer buying power, except in the most pedantic sense.
I don't mean to imply that The Emperor Has No Clothes; the less revenue Epic gives to Apple, the more revenue Epic has to improve Fortnite for their customers. Rather, I think this all speaks to the paucity of the US's current antitrust standard. As long as Facebook is "free", they can be as anti-competitive as they like, and prices will not increase. But consumers pay in other ways—with their data, with their eyeballs, and by missing out on products that never had the chance to exist.
Can't you argue this about any software? A copy of an expensive, downloadable software is always "just bits", and the marginal cost of selling one more copy is ridiculously low, but that doesn't mean the software itself is free. In order to sell those V-Bucks, Epic had to spend millions in order to develop, market, run and support a game that people actually want to play.
For example, you could have two businesses with 100% market share in an industry, and have a contract between the two stating "we will not provide benefits, or salaries exceeding $X, to employees in this sector" and you have zero anti-trust issues because it doesn't increase consumer prices.
Abysmal.
As far as 'getting into programming' goes, Sweeney is probably second only to Anders Heljsberg. Where the latter got me into 'proper' programming, until well into my late teens I was more interested in level editing and modding and whatnot.
In the same way that it was amazing to find out that the same guy was behind Turbo Pascal, Delphi and Typescript, it was amazing to discover that ZZT and UnrealED, years apart, were also just one guy. I spent so much time with these tools!
Or...make a sudden update to their TOS
If Apple takes down Fortnite here, the DOJ takes down the App Store.
And if Apple prevents Epic from selling direct with a much lower processing fee (note the 20% price cut is similar to the 30%/12% difference between their store fees), Apple is directly preventing competition that would lower prices for consumers.
Which is to say, even if the current laws allow Apple to act here, if it does, the next laws might prohibit it from doing so.
Sure there is. It has a monopoly over apps that consumers install on apple phones.
That is a huge market, and one that apple has monopoly control over.