[HN Gopher] Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the ...
___________________________________________________________________
Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
Author : amaBasics
Score : 142 points
Date : 2021-05-21 20:30 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.protocol.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.protocol.com)
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| There's a lot of debate and fine tuning of what should be allowed
| regarding things like the size of apple's cut, side loading or
| allowing a 3rd party appstore but it's painfully clear to me that
| banning app developers from even mentioning an alternate payment
| method is very anti-consumer.
| kevingadd wrote:
| The judge did seem to be coming back to the anti-steering rule
| in particular multiple times over the course of testimony. If
| only one thing changes as a result of her ruling, I feel like
| it's probably the anti-steering rule going away.
|
| IMO that _is_ probably the worst policy of the bunch. In
| particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the
| 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was
| being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for
| paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of
| these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30%
| Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer
| noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update.
|
| "The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events
| directly through the app. Apple's rules say that purchases of
| digital content have to use the App Store's payments system,
| giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked
| Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to
| event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now
| available, but without the message about Apple's 30-percent
| cut."
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...
| rsj_hn wrote:
| This is going to the Supreme Court and will not be settled by
| a single judge, particularly a California district judge.
| There is just no incentive for either participant to decide
| "Oh, if Yvonne Rogers says so, then sure we're changing
| business models".
|
| The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style
| dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar
| ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with
| possibly minor adjustments.
| kiawe_fire wrote:
| This is the rule that bothers me the most, so it's the one
| big change I would be happy with.
|
| This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates
| Apple's platform from every other mobile and game console app
| store regarding fees and whatnot.
|
| In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy
| handed approach to content. Whether it's policing political
| content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like
| Amazon they aren't allowed to inform customers of other means
| of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive,
| anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else.
|
| (That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side
| loading support, I just don't think I'd like the consequences
| of that coming from a court ruling).
| treis wrote:
| It's just so obviously anti-competitve and harmful to
| consumers. If that doesn't get slapped down it's somewhat hard
| to imagine what possibly would.
| skohan wrote:
| anti-trust is in a very sad state in the US, and fixing could
| solve _a lot_ of problem
| berkut wrote:
| "We have 150,000 APIs to create and maintain"
|
| Really? API calls maybe, and a lot of them are barely documented
| in my experience.
| brailsafe wrote:
| In other news, it seems like protocol simply shows nothing if I
| have ghostery turned on.
| alex_young wrote:
| Remember that when the iPhone was launched there was no app
| store. All you could do was 'install' a web app.
|
| Now we have progressive web apps with full offline functionality,
| but installing them is a nightmare.
|
| You have to dig through the share menu from Safari (tough luck if
| you use another browser) to install one, and Apple removes it
| after some time limit.
|
| Maybe a half measure would be to make that process less
| restrictive and allow companies to directly distribute software
| to their users again...
| ec109685 wrote:
| Push notifications also don't work with web apps. Totally
| hamstrung platform.
| alex_young wrote:
| Isn't that an os issue? Push notifications work on desktop
| websites...
| causality0 wrote:
| I really hope the concept of "you can't be anti-competitive if
| you own the entire ecosystem" dies.
| skizm wrote:
| I mean I really haven't heard a good argument against it.
| Everyone is just complaining that 30% is too high, or it
| shouldn't apply to IAP for some reason. None of the questions
| the judged asked really get to the heart of the matter: why
| should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app
| store? What makes app stores different than the xbox
| marketplace or ebay? If the app store was more specific with
| the types of apps they allow (ex. no more IAP apps), would that
| make it better or worse?
| ssivark wrote:
| Rather, the question is, how can Apple control access to a
| device they have _sold_ to customers by forcing all app
| deployments through their App Store? They can run the App
| Store quite whimsically if they allow side loading apps and
| other app repositories.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > why should the government get to tell Apple how to run
| their app store?
|
| Do you simply not believe in anti-trust law then?
|
| What if microsoft forced you to pay them a 30 percent cut,
| for installing other web browsers, or apps? You would be ok
| with that?
| Animats wrote:
| _why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their
| app store?_
|
| Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what
| antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise
| prices.
| mcphage wrote:
| Who gets to define what the current ecosystem is?
| slver wrote:
| The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is
| so we understand the system-wide implications of these
| attitudes.
|
| Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside
| their store without having to ask them?
|
| Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?
| planetafro wrote:
| Wouldn't it be more like any games you bought at GameStop
| would force you to pay a cut to Gamestop from inside the
| games in-game store? ...that GameStop has nothing to do with.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Obviously there's a spectrum of scenarios.
|
| In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling
| made a huge positive change in telco in the us.
|
| Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive
| benefit.
|
| I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a
| Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of
| delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive
| forces and innovation.
|
| The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already
| operates an internal enterprise store -- the metaphor exists.
| It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into
| something different and arguably better.
| fooey wrote:
| The closest comparable platforms are probably the consoles.
| Should Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo be forced to allow 3rd party
| app stores on their devices?
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Why not? Everybody benefits from open marketplaces. The PC
| has been like this, and though Steam is dominant, it's not
| even close to a monopoly.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already
| rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if
| you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again,
| there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at
| a market rate.
|
| You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual
| land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can
| charge whatever they like, there is no competition.
|
| The argument of choose another phone is different, because it
| requires spending a large amount of money for the right to
| entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.
|
| I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be
| either way, need to dig into it more.
| nradov wrote:
| You can buy a new unlocked Samsung smartphone for $180.
| That's hardly cost prohibitive. Especially if you already
| have an iPhone you can just sell it and buy something else.
| Someone wrote:
| Apple's argument is that their land has value because of
| the work they did/do. They also may argue that rents for
| their land are at market rate, as demand for it stays high.
|
| Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion)
| because of their market power, but that, I think, isn't
| much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume
| are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers.
|
| Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better
| examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you
| have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn't even
| surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.
| [deleted]
| slver wrote:
| > I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can
| already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your
| own store if you like.
|
| Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of".
|
| > The argument of choose another phone is different,
| because it requires spending a large amount of money for
| the right to entry. To many people this is cost
| prohibitive.
|
| This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be
| cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into
| buying an iPhone.
|
| Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I
| should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what
| an iPhone does, don't buy one.
|
| You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so
| expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| The level of specificity in debates around these subjects
| is kind of moot. The trajectory of growth of these
| companies and their impact on our everyday lives make it
| obvious they will be regulated to ensure fair
| competition. Whether it happens today, or 10 years from
| now... it will almost certainly happen, I'm very
| confident in that.
|
| I don't plan to hash out the legal language of a proposed
| law in a HN comment, but "platforms" will probably be
| defined in some way and be required to allow competition.
| An app store is nothing other than a market that can
| either be competitive or not, depending on how it's
| regulated.
|
| It was considered sensible to implement anti-trust laws
| to protect consumers in the broader markets, I have no
| doubt that when a privately created market reaches
| sufficient market share and impact, they will be subject
| to anti-trust laws as well.
|
| As a thought experiment, imagine 99% of the population
| uses iOS... now the private market of an app store
| becomes the de-facto public market by virtue of adoption.
| The same can be said for social media, where a single app
| can control 90% of discussion (depending on country and
| medium of discussion). There is no world in which these
| things will not be regulated as "public spaces" once they
| reach sufficient scale.
|
| The question is just when does the scale become
| sufficiently large, and when do the rules cross the line
| into anti-competitive behavior. They are close but maybe
| not quite far enough to get regulated yet.
| devit wrote:
| The issue is about app developers who don't get to choose
| the phone that users have.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Are iOS devices Apple's private property?
| slver wrote:
| iOS is. It's a software and a set of associated services
| and apps provided to you under a license.
|
| If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own
| App Store.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > If you wanna install your own OS
|
| Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an
| iPhone's bootloader unlocked?
| slver wrote:
| I don't work at Apple, do your own research. Also maybe
| next time do that research before buying a device and
| then complaining it doesn't do what it never said it
| does.
| ginko wrote:
| Why not?
|
| edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-
| and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should
| apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.
| trboyden wrote:
| Except what you state already exists. I can load the Walmart
| app on iOS and order a TV from Walmart, not Apple. Apple is
| preventing Epic from doing the same - buy in-app merchandise
| through Epic's app on iOS.
| drusepth wrote:
| Can you buy any digital goods on iOS with the Walmart app?
| trboyden wrote:
| Yes, digital downloads for Nintendo, Xbox. Digital gift
| cards for Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo, including
| credit for Playstation Store and Nintendo eStore.
| nicoburns wrote:
| It's interesting to consider what the effect of breaking up
| Walmart into constituent parts (either vertically or
| horizontally) would be. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a net-
| positive for the economy. The same is true for the majority
| of companies that large.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Deleted
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| The kind of ecosystem/business model that Apple has created
| is so fundamentally different from everything else that real
| world analogies just don't work. We should avoid using them
| in this debate.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Real world analogies are crucial to the process of
| reasoning about economic relationships.
|
| It's also how lawyers argue and judges decide.
|
| Not using them is implausible.
| rictic wrote:
| It's more like, if you buy a Ford car, does Taco Bell owe
| 30% to Ford when you use their drive through?
|
| Or can Ford forbid Taco Bell from operating drive through
| stores of their own, and require Ford owners to go through
| Ford's own all purpose drive through stores?
| kbelder wrote:
| When we have self-driving cars, can Ford, Tesla, etc.,
| require businesses to pay them a stipend to allow our
| cars to drive to those stores?
|
| "No, you can't drive to Walmart; Walmart isn't in the
| destination store. You may drive to Target."
| slver wrote:
| You're making a category error. A car's ecosystem is the
| road system. Roads don't let you anywhere, there has to
| be a road there. Sometimes a paid one.
| asda_ wrote:
| I mean, you can use the amazon website on the iphone and
| circumvent all the limitations for example. They want to
| use the platform apple provides to create apps (good user
| experiences). So, this analogy doesn't seem apt to me
| Angostura wrote:
| Should Taco Bell be legally required to let MacDonalds
| set up stall rent-free in their stores?
| stale2002 wrote:
| This is a false analogy.
|
| People who purchased a phone, own that phone. Apple
| doesn't own it anymore.
|
| Thats the difference. McDonald's own the store. But they
| don't own your car.
|
| And similarly, Apple does not own your phone, but they go
| to great efforts to prevent you from using other app
| stores.
| slver wrote:
| You own a phone yes. But you don't own iOS. So take your
| own phone and install your own OS on it if that's what
| you want.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Ok, and people should be allowed to install whatever they
| want on their own hardware.
|
| We don't need to force Apple to put apps on its app
| store.
|
| Instead, people should be allowed to install whatever
| they want on the hardware that they own.
|
| > So take your own phone and install your own OS
|
| Or, instead of that, we could use the court system, to
| stop illegal anti-competitive practices, and require, by
| the existing law, that people are allowed to do what they
| want with their own phone.
| [deleted]
| slver wrote:
| You can do whatever you want with your phone already. As
| I said you don't own iOS. Install your own OS.
| [deleted]
| slver wrote:
| Look I don't know about Taco Bell, does it come installed
| in your car, like you push a button and a taco comes out
| from your dashboard? Because that's the only case this
| terrible example makes sense.
|
| If you get a job through a phone interview, do you owe
| Apple 30% of your salary? No.
|
| Using your phone's services doesn't cause Apple to get a
| cut of anything that happens while you do so. Selling
| apps THROUGH ITS OWN STORE does.
| slver wrote:
| I wasn't using an analogy. I was literally talking about:
| if this is a law, how it'll ACTUALLY impact every business.
|
| If you think what Apple has created is different, again,
| define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and
| where the line is.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Can you please explain how you go from the hypothetical
| future of "Apple's 30% app store cut is found to be
| illegally anti-competitive" to "Walmart would be forced
| to allow random competitors to open stores physically
| inside them".
| slver wrote:
| I was asking a question. (1) That we define what we mean,
| so... (2) We can analyze the impact.
|
| Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30%
| store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that
| even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for
| maintaining their own store?
|
| It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is
| the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is
| 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is
| everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about
| "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not
| thinking any deeper than this?
|
| Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores
| charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order
| online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no,
| why. If yes, why?
|
| And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting
| to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again,
| where's the definition that contradicts this
| interpretation.
|
| Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I
| just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of
| substance being said.
| bussierem wrote:
| Parent does have a point here. His point is not that you
| can or should compare the two. We know they are
| different. But the LAW doesn't. How do you define in
| LEGAL terms how apple and WalMart are different? You
| can't use the word "ecosystem" like we throw around for
| apple because it is meaningless in legal terms. So first
| you need to either find an existing legal term and apply
| it or you need to make a new one. If you make a new one
| (because obviously Apples thing doesn't have a normal
| analogy) then you have to be VERRRRRY CAREFUL how you
| define it and what exact terms you use because whatever
| that is will be used and abused by precedence for decades
| to come.
| trboyden wrote:
| I can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website
| on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom
| and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.
| nodamage wrote:
| You can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari,
| and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't
| stop you from doing that either.
| grishka wrote:
| I really hope devices, services, and infrastructure get
| separated and also that it would become illegal for a device
| manufacturer to retain any kind of control over a device after
| it's been sold. Burning a public key into OTP ROM as trusted
| and not providing its private counterpart counts too.
|
| You want to set up cloud backups? You get a text box to put a
| domain in. You get to choose whose infrastructure you use. It
| might be pre-filled with apple.com, but that's as far as it can
| legally go.
|
| Protocols, not platforms.
| rjayatilleka wrote:
| Why is a judge asking a witness questions? Isn't that normally
| either the prosecutor or defense counsels' job?
| cheeze wrote:
| Anywhere I can watch a VOD of it?
| jmole wrote:
| I can buy a book directly on the Amazon iOS app, but I can't buy
| an ebook.
|
| That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear
| case that this is anticompetitive behavior.
| crenwick wrote:
| I agree that it's a fundamental problem and anticompetitive
| behavior but I don't think it's as clear of a court case as
| this Epic v Apple.
|
| Users don't need to install the Amazon iOS app, instead they
| can use Safari where they can buy books and ebooks directly.
|
| Games like the ones Epic makes, however, cannot run in Safari.
| They are forced to go through Apple store and play by Apple's
| rules.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| This weirded me the heck out when I switched from Android last
| year. I can't buy for my Kindle from the iOS Amazon app, but I
| can log into amazon.com, buy for the Kindle there, and then
| read in my Kindle app on iOS.
|
| It suggests a way anyone can circumvent Apple's restrictions
| too. Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content
| player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to
| your website to buy the content, and then download it to your
| app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual
| game DLC.
| cosmie wrote:
| Apple's guidelines already cover their bases to prevent such
| a loophole.
|
| The first clause of their Payments[1] guidelines explicitly
| states you're to use in-app purchases to unlock features and
| functionality within your app, while also forbidding you from
| linking to or directing users to any alternative purchasing
| mechanisms.
|
| They then make limited exemptions for "reader apps"[2] to
| allow users to consume content they've previously purchased,
| and explicitly list which categories of content they consider
| allowable for this exemption. Games not being one of them.
| They also make an exemption for multi-platform services which
| isn't as restrictive as the reader app clause, but only if
| you _also_ abide by the first clause of making it available
| as an in-app purchase as well (and not direct people to
| alternatives for purchase).
|
| So this works for Amazon's Kindle app, but wouldn't for a
| gaming service. And even the way Amazon handles Kindle
| listings[3] in their main app is toeing the line of what
| Apple allows, and smaller companies would have a hard time
| pulling off.
|
| And just for good measure, they also pretty much spell out
| exactly what you described in the first bullet under the
| Unacceptable clause[4]
|
| [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/review/guidelines/#pay...
|
| [2] https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/review/guidelines/#rea...
|
| [3] "This app does not support purchasing. Books purchased
| from Amazon are available to read in the Kindle app" is what
| they put on the listing page. It's not a direct call to
| action so isn't strictly against the guidelines, but such a
| thinly veiled insinuation is something few other companies
| would be able to get passed app review.
|
| [4] https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/review/guidelines/#una...
| placatedmayhem wrote:
| > Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content
| player but has no content of its own, then have customers go
| to your website to buy the content, and then download it to
| your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every
| actual game DLC.
|
| I believe this accurately describes Epic Games Store, or any
| other games storefront like Steam, as they work on desktop
| platforms like Windows. The Store is free, then all the games
| are paid (or sometimes, free) "DLC". Is there a fundamental
| difference I'm missing?
| esclerofilo wrote:
| > Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual
| game DLC
|
| That would make the "empty" app qualify as a general-purpose
| computer and therefore break Apple's ToS.
|
| Oh, and if the app mentioned the possibility of going to the
| website, that would also break Apple's ToS.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| One bit of context to add: Amazon opted out selling ebooks one
| the app due to the the 30% fee imposed on purchasing in
| app/digital goods. They're not disallowed from selling ebooks.
|
| I mention this because it's both an important distinction and
| the same subject as Epic's lawsuit.
| mcphage wrote:
| Along the same lines, Comixology removed their ability to buy
| issues in-app when Amazon bought the company.
| jmole wrote:
| But I can also fund a Robinhood account directly from my bank
| account through the iOS app and buy cryptocurrency.
|
| Or I can go on the ebay iOS app and buy a PDF ebook from a
| seller.
|
| The mechanism of "in-app purchases" doesn't scale to ebay or
| Amazon or any other store where you might have millions of
| SKUs. Not to mention that you can't even buy Kindle books on
| the iOS app, even if you already have credit on Amazon (gift
| card, rewards points, etc.).
| echelon wrote:
| Good! It's about time that our industry's monopoly of the ages is
| put to bed.
|
| Apple put us in the kettle and slowly turned up the heat. They
| delivered good hardware, good software, but at the same time
| demanded that nobody else have the ability to run JIT, other
| runtimes, first-class web, browsers, marketplaces, etc. Over
| time, Apple rose to 50% of the market, all the while exacting
| complete control and taxing all market activities.
|
| Unfortunately, iPhone is now responsible for a majority of its
| users' business activities. It's the single plane of control
| between a user and their banking, commerce, communication,
| entertainment, and social lives.
|
| We didn't allow this level of control with Microsoft in the 90's
| and 00's, and there's no reason we should allow the increased
| scope of control that Apple has now.
|
| They need to lose the App Store.
|
| They need to have an open platform.
|
| They can't run Apple Pay.
|
| Other browsers and JIT runtimes need to be allowed. Marketplaces,
| too.
|
| This needs to happen to Google as well.
|
| We don't pay the electric company for every app we install. We
| don't pay UPS for our Netflix subscriptions. Apple isn't
| providing any additional economic value. They're a tax, and
| that's it. They're also an impediment to repairing our own
| devices. It has to stop, and they have to start playing fair.
| w7 wrote:
| I'm confused, don't we allow this level of control with video
| game consoles? (Heck Sony and Microsoft also take 30% cuts)
|
| What's the difference other than form factor?
| anoncake wrote:
| There is none. Game consoles should also be forced open.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > don't we allow this level of control with video game
| consoles?
|
| The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of
| control via extensive government lobbying.
| echelon wrote:
| I message my boss on PS5 Slack and tell him I'm done for the
| day.
|
| I then take my PS5 to the mall, because I carry it with me to
| do all of my financial transactions. Later, I log onto my PS5
| bank account app to check my spending limits.
|
| I check PS5 Yelp for a list of restaurants. I head out, but
| I'm careful to check my PS5 GPS to know where I'm headed. I
| fill up my car using PS5 pay, and as I leave get messages
| from potential romantic matches on PS5 Tinder.
|
| Of course Sony gets a cut of every transaction and there are
| no other options than taking your PS5 with you everywhere.
|
| Oh wait, there's Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam, Epic, GOG, ...?
| Lots of options for games. But what about email, finance,
| dating, and everything else I would do on my PS5? Gaming
| devices aren't general purpose computers and don't do general
| purpose business, communication, finance, etc.
|
| Gaming is a toy and comparatively niche industry with lots of
| consumer choice. The iPhone is 50% of all commerce in all
| industries for all Americans.
|
| Apple has locked down _computing_ behind an iron curtain, and
| they 're clawing away at more and more as the days go by. If
| the trend continues, every restaurant will be Apple (instead
| of Taco Bell), and you'll license your car and pay Apple by
| the mile. The signs you see out your window will have to pay
| Apple a licensing fee.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Gaming is unimportant.
|
| General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by
| locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more
| concerning.
| Google234 wrote:
| General-purpose computing Is bigger than ever. Record PC
| and component sales and more open source software than
| ever.
| ncann wrote:
| The line is very blurry. The only major difference between a
| console and a smartphone is that a console is intended from
| the get go to be a gaming device, whereas a smartphone is
| more of a generic computing device, but even then it's hard
| to draw a meaningful argument on why one should be treated
| differently from the other.
| danbolt wrote:
| Perhaps something similar to the Xbox's UWP mode might be
| nice. The owner can run their own computer program on it,
| but opts out of Xbox games and services.
| esclerofilo wrote:
| In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold
| at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut.
| And in my experience, another big difference was that when I
| had consoles, I could easily borrow my friend's games, or buy
| cheaper games used. I don't know how it works with digital
| goods on modern consoles, but Steam actually has a feature to
| lend your library to a friend, so there's precedent.
| anoncake wrote:
| If customers don't buy consoles unless sold at a loss, they
| value them less than making them costs. Which means they
| shouldn't be made.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| It may be a matter of consumer perception. A game console is
| viewed as an appliance for playing games. A phone is a more
| personal device, and users expect to be able to run any app
| they want. Generally apps that most people are interested in
| running have no issue getting published on the App Store, so
| consumers don't care about the technicalities of what Apple
| does and does not allow. This Epic case is a big deal because
| it is likely the first time many iPhone users are being faced
| with Apple preventing them from running software that they
| care about.
| kaiju0 wrote:
| They would just stop making the phone.
| mcphage wrote:
| I think if Tim Cook announced he was stopping iPhone
| production, he would find himself unemployed by the end of
| the day.
| echelon wrote:
| > They would just stop making the phone.
|
| Stop making their high margin hardware that integrates into
| paid Apple services? The same phone that works with other
| massively popular Apple hardware, such as Air Pods? Extremely
| doubtful.
|
| Apple will not cut off their nose to spite their face.
|
| Maybe you have less faith in Apple than I do. I believe they
| can succeed enormously without their monopoly. They make
| great products. Microsoft managed _just fine_ (look at their
| market cap!)
|
| edit: I'm confused. Are the downvotes from Apple fans that
| think the hardware sucks without the monopoly? And that Apple
| can't survive without it?
| StreamBright wrote:
| HN is just a massive downvote crew nowadays without any
| arguments. Since the karma system does not penalize this
| behavior it is widespread.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Or they'll loudly whine and then follow their orders like
| Microsoft did back in the day.
| slver wrote:
| Getting short-term compliance is the easy part. But the
| hard part is calculating how this changes the business
| incentives of a company and how they adapt to this
| compliance over time.
|
| What orders did Microsoft follow in specific, what are you
| referring about? Let's see how this has actually impacted
| their business today.
| leoedin wrote:
| I agree - the service Apple are offering for recurring payments
| is that of a payment processor. In a competitive market that
| role takes 2-3% at most. And that percentage has been falling
| year on year as new entrants have entered the market.
|
| How does a company disrupt the Google/Apple phone duopoly? Even
| Microsoft spending hundreds of millions of dollars couldn't do
| it.
| makomk wrote:
| Even on PC, where there's plenty of store competition, the
| only way to get much lower than 30% seems to be to seriously
| cut corners - Epic's own store famously lacks standard
| features like a shopping card, and people have had problems
| with buying multiple games in succession seperately
| triggering anti-fraud measures that stop them from doing so,
| so they're not exactly doing great even at the payment
| processing part. And they're quite openly subsidising that
| from their Fortnite profits as well in many ways.
| kevingadd wrote:
| While I agree that the EGS experience is bad, I don't think
| this is related to the cut. It's just an immature store
| backed by questionable software engineering and design.
| There are other stores with low % cuts that don't have
| these issues.
|
| Itch is very cheap, for example, and developers love it.
| Apparently Itch is important enough that Apple and Epic
| kept bringing it up over and over in court.
|
| I don't know their current %s, but Humble's game sales
| platform (that is, for non-bundle game sales) definitely
| charged way less than 30% in the past.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| I was not expecting that "gaming industry subsidizing other
| industries" argument. Are there any legal precedents around this
| idea?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market
| competitive rate would be.
|
| I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher.
| If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the
| fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it
| running.
|
| Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to
| change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live
| in a world where a single corporation can control major aspects
| around your entire life. I've been a strong free market proponent
| myself, but at a certain scale it becomes anti-competitive, which
| ultimately becomes anti-consumer.
|
| This may not be the case that alters regulations, but I would be
| very surprised if we don't see big changes to regulate social
| media/big tech "private spaces".
| fooey wrote:
| Everything you buy has markup. Everything
|
| Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different
| industries have different standards.
|
| It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like
| Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost
| never at a lower price.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you'd start screaming blood murder if your
| grocery store put a flat 30% markup on all items tomorrow.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Sure, that's true. I have no problem with businesses making
| money.
|
| But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90%
| (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the
| market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-
| trust law exists.
|
| Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is
| making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing
| devices should become walled gardens where companies are free
| to gouge their customers.
|
| Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into
| the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30%
| markup just to break even when offering through the app
| store. This is simple math, and self evident.
|
| The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of
| technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone
| user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy
| competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality?
|
| Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on
| both iOS and Android app stores.
| user3939382 wrote:
| I've watched these big tech cases wind their way through the
| courts since US v Microsoft. I've learned, if there is a lot of
| money at stake, individual judges and decisions matter little
| because it will get dragged out for years. These big companies
| even have workarounds to the negative consequences of final
| decisions.
| m463 wrote:
| The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of
| putting apps on _their own phones_ that do not require apple 's
| permission.
|
| Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just
| stay with the app store.
|
| The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but
| they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to
| do new things on their phone.
|
| Personally, I would like the ability to see what apps - including
| apple apps - are doing, and firewall my phone.
| baron816 wrote:
| It should just be like on Mac--you can go through the App
| Store, or you can download directly, but with a warning.
|
| I think that would be killer argument for Epic--Apple already
| allows you to download apps onto their devices that don't go
| through their store and everything is fine.
| voisin wrote:
| This argument was made and their response yesterday was that
| there is an unacceptable level of malware on macs because
| they are not locked down the same way.
| grishka wrote:
| So the subscription scams in the iOS app store are an
| acceptable level of malware. Got it.
| shagie wrote:
| You open up 'general', you go to 'subscriptions', and
| select that. Any subscription on the iPhone can be
| canceled right there. As this is done through Apple's
| payment processing, Apple/iPhone knows about every
| subscription and can cancel it easily.
|
| However, if the subscription is processed through a third
| party, then you may have more difficulty with canceling
| it... but it wasn't bought through the app on the phone.
|
| Additionally, by default, renewal receipts are sent for
| each subscription and are visible under the purchase
| history.
|
| If Epic wins and you've got subscriptions set up using
| payment processors other than Apple, this will make it
| harder to manage these subscriptions.
| mason55 wrote:
| > _Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will
| just stay with the app store._
|
| The problem is that if it's possible to trick grandpa into
| downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only
| defense is to not make it possible.
|
| You can argue if that's a worthy goal or not but thats what
| Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick
| people into downloading malware.
| trboyden wrote:
| That's a false premise because consumers have endured the
| Microsoft ecosystem for decades and the risk vs choice is one
| that consumers have accepted. The only way Apple would have
| an argument for that aspect of their ecosystem, is that if
| all similar vendors operated the same way. This case is about
| consumer choice and it's the better consumer choice argument
| that is going to win.
| flomo wrote:
| Apple has made a ton of money from people utterly
| dissatisfied with the windows ecosystem, so I disagree
| people have accepted this. (I certainly haven't, and put my
| parents on an iPad 10 years ago and haven't heard barely a
| peep out of them since.)
|
| I think more technical HN-type users aren't aware or have
| forgotten how terribad the Windows download scene was in
| the 2000s. It was almost impossible to install anything
| without getting some toolbar or adware bundle, if not
| outright malware.
| pindab0ter wrote:
| Microsoft making certain choices regarding to safety and
| how open their platform is has no relevance to what choices
| Apple makes. Apple happens to choose for a less permissive
| system and it has been going well for them and their users.
| I don't see how that has anything to do with how other
| vendors choose to operate.
| sigzero wrote:
| They never accepted that. They had no choice really. They
| do have a choice here. Use Apple or don't and go with
| Android.
| tshaddox wrote:
| You literally just used the word "endured" to describe the
| relationship between customers and Microsoft. That's hardly
| a glowing endorsement or a strong argument that Apple
| should follow Microsoft's lead!
| m463 wrote:
| It is also possible to trick grandpa into buying another
| iphone because that's the only way of preserving his text
| messages from the grandkids when his iphone filled up.
| grishka wrote:
| Computers and Android devices don't employ predatory code
| signing and can run anything without the manufacturer having
| a say, yet somehow the hell didn't break loose. Also, if you
| don't let people make mistakes or see someone else make them,
| they won't learn. In effect, one might say that this scheme
| makes people dumber.
| tshaddox wrote:
| What do you mean? Hell _does_ break lose. The malware
| situation on PCs might be better than it was 15 years ago,
| but it's still ubiquitous. Removing malware from PCs is
| still an entire industry and career path.
| tshaddox wrote:
| This is the point that people keep missing. The most common
| argument is "just let people install whatever software they
| want and if they install something bad that's their fault."
| But the point is that, if Apple does allow sideloading apps,
| _customer satisfaction with iPhones will almost certainly go
| down_. Can you argue that those new unsatisfied customers are
| to blame? Sure. But Apple probably actually cares about how
| satisfied their customers are with their products.
| wmf wrote:
| Apple definitely needs to keep working on the sandbox both
| for defense in depth and so that sideloaded apps (if the
| court forces it) can be secure enough.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| It's possible to trick grandpa into sending money to Nigeria,
| too, but we don't use that as an excuse for forcing him to do
| business with a particular bank.
| toast0 wrote:
| This need might be better handled by allowing delegation of
| approval to a trusted contact.
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| The best outcome for everybody is that the maximum % commission
| of these stores is regulated, perhaps to a maximum of 10-15%.
|
| Do that and the need for alternate stores, alternate payments
| etc. goes away.
| bitcurious wrote:
| If I want an alternate store, it's not to safe ~$20/year in
| commission, it's to gain access to functionality to which
| Apple restricts access.
| manicdee wrote:
| Why does Apple restrict access to certain functionality?
| anoncake wrote:
| Because they don't like competition, for example.
| mrkramer wrote:
| App is not necessity good, you can not impose price controls
| for apps like you can for food for example.
| fooey wrote:
| Basically every other comparable store charges the exact same
| 30% rate
|
| Google, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo
|
| The ones that don't just prove that charging a lower rate
| doesn't actually change the price the consumer pays in any
| way.
| ginko wrote:
| They should be forced to open up as well. The whole
| software platform business model needs to die.
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| Google charges 15% <$1million
|
| Steam charges 20-30% depending on how big you are, and
| probably has a sweatheart deal with EA.
|
| Xbox and Playstation offer subsidised hardware and arguably
| have a 0% rate given that so many titles are published in-
| house.
|
| Nintendo offers an effective 25% rate as 5% of spend is
| rebated to customers' wallets.
|
| Microsoft charges 12%
|
| Epic charges 12%
| voisin wrote:
| I think it is about more than commission. Developers argue
| the rules can be applied capriciously and that many of the
| rules are paternalistic.
| ssivark wrote:
| On the contrary, I would argue the exact converse. There are
| many reasons to want alternative app stores, and they might
| even be an effective market mechanism to avoid specifying
| some naive threshold like 15%.
| ginko wrote:
| That still doesn't let me install (real) Firefox.
| rektide wrote:
| > The best result for customers is that there are alternate
| ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require
| apple's permission.
|
| Should Apple still be allowed to prevent Chrome from running
| it's own rendering, javascript, & other web platform engines?
| How much editorial & technical control are we going to let
| Apple keep, if we do allow alternate distribution mechanisms?
| manicdee wrote:
| Most phone users aren't interested in developing software on
| their phone. They aren't interested in developing a better
| systemd. They have no idea what malware actually is.
|
| All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is
| Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple, and the user
| will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don't
| conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg:
| accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which change from
| iOS version to version.
|
| Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame
| Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we'll be back in court
| with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing
| things.
|
| If you want third party stores, there's the Android ecosystem.
| Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
| benrbray wrote:
| The point is opening it up so users have a choice. Third
| party stores will emerge, and it is up to the consumer, not
| Apple, to decide whether the extra features are worth the new
| apps being a little rough around the edges like they are on
| Android. If it's as bad as you say, the new stores will not
| be successful anyway.
| nucleardog wrote:
| > The point is opening it up so users have a choice.
|
| Users have a choice: Don't use iOS.
|
| Their actions have pretty overwhelmingly spoken and they
| don't care. The only people that care are techies. And most
| obviously not that much because most meetings I show up to
| are still full of iPhones.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I'm a techie and I don't want to worry about malware,
| spyware, extensive software configuration, etc. on my
| microwave, my car, or my phone. I've got plenty of
| computing devices for that!
| trimbo wrote:
| > If it's as bad as you say, the new stores will not be
| successful anyway.
|
| Every app with any popularity will then be considering
| their own app store. The WeChat Store. The Facebook Store.
| The Snap Store. And just like Fortnite on PC, you won't be
| able to install those apps at all without installing their
| store. [Edit: I currently have 5 or 6 games stores on my PC
| because of exactly this!]
|
| Then we'll have to trust that all of these companies have
| the same level of competence to prevent malware that Apple
| does (narrator: "they won't").
| bsder wrote:
| > Then we'll have to trust that all of these companies
| have the same level of competence to prevent malware that
| Apple does (narrator: "they won't").
|
| This is a losing argument. We've already seen that the
| Apple store doesn't/can't prevent clones and fakes with
| information collecting inserts from overwhelming the
| originals.
|
| Another store might actually do this better.
| insert_coin wrote:
| They already can do it better on Android!
| [deleted]
| threatofrain wrote:
| Why do users care about this choice? What are some top
| experiences available to Android which aren't available to
| iOS customers? In fact, isn't it often the other way
| around? iOS gets things and Android doesn't?
|
| Or are users seeing awful prices for the app store?
|
| Where are Customers complaining the most?
| skohan wrote:
| Well I can imagine if 3rd party stores were allowed, I
| could have a Steam client on an iPad for example, and
| share my library of games without paying for it a second
| time for iOS.
| pindab0ter wrote:
| But there's no Steam on Android either even though they
| do support third party app stores.
| [deleted]
| StavrosK wrote:
| > All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is
| Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple
|
| "All" that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is
| there's going to be competition in what is now a monopoly. To
| say that the only difference will be lower quality is, at
| best, naive.
| saagarjha wrote:
| > the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew
| battery, and don't conform to the UX standards that Apple has
| set (eg: accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which
| change from iOS version to version
|
| This is already true with the App Store today.
| skohan wrote:
| The new iPads literally have the same SOC as what are some
| of, if not the best consumer laptops on the planet currently.
| But what can you do with them? Not a heck of a lot, thanks to
| the walled garden that is iPad OS. If you ask me, that's a
| crying shame.
|
| I don't see how it hurts anyone to allow side-loading of apps
| on iOS devices. Even if you make it as hard as having a
| toggle behind a scary warning 2 layers deep in the menu, 95%
| of users will never use it, and it will open up a world of
| opportunities for people who actually want to create with
| their devices.
| insert_coin wrote:
| And you can not buy iPads.
|
| I know it is completely anathema to suggest something like
| this on HN these days as the socialist wave completely took
| it over and the mere suggestion that people have the
| freedom to not buy something if they don't think it fits
| within their world view instead of trying to force everyone
| using the state and the courts to cater specifically to
| them is now considered a sin, but...
|
| You said it yourself, you have a laptop with the exact same
| chip that lets you do all the things you want, and then you
| have the iPad that doesn't...why don't you buy the laptop
| instead? Surely if enough people feel the way you do Apple
| would get the message.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > If you ask me, that's a crying shame.
|
| If they ask you, buy the MacBook Air instead of the iPad
| Pro!
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
|
| But it is actually you who want to control how other people
| use their own phone, that they own.
|
| If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem
| solved.
|
| That way, people who want to trust apple get what they want,
| as well as people who want to trust other app stores.
|
| Everyone wins, right? Why do you care so much about how other
| people use their own phone?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it.
| Problem solved.
|
| That only holds up until something you need is exclusive to
| a store that you don't want to use.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Your argument only works if people are forced to use
| iPhones or if you can show that reasonable people expect to
| have functionality on their iPhones that doesn't exist. But
| on the contrary, I suspect a lot of people choose iPhones
| specifically because of the perceived curation of the App
| Store and lack of malware, spyware, etc.
| fartcannon wrote:
| I'd like to use these unbelievably powerful portable computers
| like general purpose computers.
|
| Develop applications right on device! My dream.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| That does not sound desirable at all for anything other than
| basic toys..
| Angostura wrote:
| You can, there are plenty of development environments on iOS.
| What you can't do is distribute those apps. They are stick on
| your phone.
| saagarjha wrote:
| They also don't make standalone apps.
| fooey wrote:
| The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices
|
| I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe
| locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the
| first place.
|
| If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want
| a curated ecosystem get an apple
| skohan wrote:
| > but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the
| appeal of the devices in the first place.
|
| Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could
| equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-
| interest
| stale2002 wrote:
| > The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices
|
| But there are other solutions. The other solution is that
| people are allowed to do what they want, with phones that
| they own.
|
| And you don't have to download other app stores, if you
| don't want to!
| fxtentacle wrote:
| I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. It appears they
| have enough cash, enough clever people, and a good connection to
| Chinese manufacturers through their partners.
|
| If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the
| Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining
| easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for
| grabbing market share from Apple and Google.
|
| I, at least, am unhappy with Apple's greedy behavior and also
| unhappy with Google's Data Kranken tendencies. So there's at
| least a niche market opening for a 3rd OS. And I'm not holding my
| breath for Linux. Instead, I think it'll be something like
| Lineage OS and its privacy protections but more professionally
| managed.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Hmm, sounds like Amazon's ecosystem, which has hardly been a
| competitive success.
|
| We don't need more vertical silos, we need a horizontal playing
| field.
| grishka wrote:
| It's not a problem they're trying to solve. You can't just tell
| people "go buy a less restrictive phone". You want to make your
| app available for whatever hardware they already have. You want
| to provide your app, your users want to install your app on
| their phones that are capable of running it, but Apple forcibly
| inserts itself between you two, wants a say and acts as if you
| two couldn't have found each other without its "help".
| throwkeep wrote:
| It might be too outside Epic's wheelhouse. How about a Tesla
| phone?
| edoceo wrote:
| Like a PSP that makes calls, texts and surfs the web? With HDMI
| out (2x?) it could be a console in your pocket. Bluetooth
| controllers? Now I want this. Epic are you listening!?
| kevingadd wrote:
| A gaming phone doesn't really solve any of the issues at stake
| in this case, though. And if they want to reach people who want
| handhelds, they can just encourage them to buy a Switch and
| play Fortnite there. It would certainly be something they could
| do, but I think their mixed success with the Epic Games Store
| so far indicates that their huge cash reserves and technical
| expertise aren't sufficient to just nail any big challenge they
| take on.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Tim is on record as not being a fan of Linux, so I doubt it.
| pfisch wrote:
| That will solve none of the problems that they are suing Apple
| for.
| slver wrote:
| > I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone.
|
| Maybe think through what you're proposing. Do you believe most
| of Epic's customers will buy two phones, charge two phones and
| carry two phones just so they can play their games, while also
| having access to first-class OS services like Google and Apple
| offer?
|
| No.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| All the services that I rely upon on my Android phone are
| free 3rd party apps. Firefox, Banking, Authentication,
| Calendar
|
| So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run
| APKs, that'd be good enough.
| nradov wrote:
| Those APKs will only work on devices with licensed Google
| Play services. And that platform changes so rapidly that
| it's effectively impossible for a competitor to build
| compatible APIs without infringing on Google's IP.
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| I have an android phone without google play enabled or
| installed. Not even a replacement framework such as
| MicroG or whatever. Works fine. Check how f-doid apps are
| running, or what it requires. No google license, api,
| nothing.
| [deleted]
| xixo wrote:
| Many people recycle phones every couple of years. If the
| phone functions as a typical smartphone with a gaming bent,
| it could replace traditional smartphones for folks who want
| to game. Gamers also carry secondary hand-held devices (like
| the Nintendo Switch) for dedicated gameplay.
| slver wrote:
| Do you realize how many failed devices fit that category.
| Those who don't know their history...
| xixo wrote:
| I only said it could work, not that it will. I am aware
| of the many failures in this category. I also wanted to
| point out that the original premise (nobody would buy an
| Epic phone because it must be their second phone) is
| flawed. Not only could it replace their primary phone,
| but gamers do indeed buy, charge, and carry secondary
| hand-held devices if the device suits their needs.
| slver wrote:
| "Gamers" represent a tiny percent of the game-playing
| public. If Epic needs to rely on "gamers" they'd go
| bankrupt.
|
| Also I like how all of those theories just sit in vacuum,
| as if we're not going through a major economic
| contraction due to a two year global pandemic, but sure,
| everyone has the money to get themselves a second phone,
| because they decided not to eat anymore.
| rococode wrote:
| Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to
| her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared
| as they should've been. They didn't have any particularly
| unexpected/novel arguments, it was basically just constantly
| repeating the same bland things they've been saying all along
| about IP and fraud and convenience.
| nradov wrote:
| Novel arguments aren't needed. If the precedents are on your
| side then it makes sense to repeat bland arguments instead of
| confusing the issue. I don't necessarily support Apple's
| business policy here, but strictly from a legal standpoint
| Fortnite's case has always been a long shot.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-21 23:01 UTC)