[HN Gopher] Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account
Author : tosh
Score : 158 points
Date : 2020-08-28 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| grumple wrote:
| > This is unfair to all other developers in the App Store and
| makes users suffer from conflict.
|
| Is this not a confession that paying Apple's cut makes
| competitor's less competitive? Possibly hints that this is a
| market, but not a free one? Seems like language you'd want to
| avoid when facing anti trust cases.
| dang wrote:
| All: these Epic vs. Apple threads, and $BigCo vs. $BigCo threads
| in general, have unfortunately been seeing more name-calling,
| accusations of manipulation, flamebait/unsubstantive posts, and
| other things that break the HN guidelines. If you comment, can
| you please avoid that? Reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html would help.
|
| The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make
| it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
| Remember that every post you make has a non-negligible impact on
| the community. If we all treat this place like the discussion
| forum we'd like to have, eventually we'll have it.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| I'm surprised this kind of topic inspires such discourse. I
| wonder what makes it different than other topics.
| umvi wrote:
| Super glad I cut all ties with Apple a few years back. They make
| great products for my parents, but they are increasingly hostile
| toward developers and tech savvy users.
|
| I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store,
| and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a
| recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let
| my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth
| it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can
| download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And
| same with all of my future free software - it will never
| intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes
| their ways.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Problem solved? You made a choice that was best for you using
| your own free will.
| mushufasa wrote:
| > They make great products for my parents, but they are
| increasingly hostile toward developers and tech savvy users.
|
| This is the opposite of a backhanded complement. The market for
| your parents is orders of magnitudes greater than the market
| for developers and technologists.
| cnst wrote:
| As a tech-savvy user, I may be asked which device I
| recommend.
|
| If I write OS-agnostic mobile apps for fun, and my apps can
| be downloaded for Android easily, but cannot be downloaded
| for iOS, guess which device I'll be recommending to my
| "parents", friends and internet strangers?
| cnst wrote:
| The sad part is all the users who think that not providing the
| folks who own the physical instances of hardware the choice to
| install software from any location, is great for the end user.
|
| This option is present in Android. And you can use it at any
| time. Is it often that the option is used? Absolutely not, I've
| never even used it myself. But I still think it's great that
| it's available, and, if need be, I can easily install any app I
| want from any source, even if Google doesn't approve of such
| app or such source.
| slovette wrote:
| I'm also unsure how you can possess the skills to build an
| entire app and not also posses the skills to read the "annual
| fee" part of the developer program cost.
|
| Not rooting for Apple, but the pretentiousness in the "I'm not
| a charity" part seemed far removed from the humbleness required
| to be unintentionally illiterate.
| umvi wrote:
| I was under the impression that the fee was only annual if
| you wanted to continue developing. I didn't know the fee was
| also tied to whether or not your existing apps would be taken
| down. Clearly, this is confusing to other people as well:
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5271418/will-my-app-
| stay...
| MBCook wrote:
| I gotta say I really thought Epic would blink and comply. I guess
| I underestimated their resolve.
|
| It's not like their lawsuit wouldn't continue if they put
| Fortnite back in the App Store.
| yxhuvud wrote:
| It was very obvious that the response from Apple was quite
| expected so I don't understand why there would be any blinking
| going on.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Two things:
|
| One: Epic Games is 40% owned by Tencent.[1] _I 'll reserve my
| opinion here an suggest others use this as a point of
| discussion to explore what we believe this might mean_.
|
| Two: Media attention is _everything_ in the court of public
| opinion.
|
| 1. Tencent Holdings Ltd is a Chinese multinational conglomerate
| holding company, founded in 1998, <snip> the world's largest
| video game company, one of the world's most financially
| valuable companies, one of the world's largest social media
| companies, and one of the world's largest venture capital firms
| and investment corporations.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| tim sweeny is 51%
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Tim Sweeny is one guy.
|
| China has somewhere in the vicinity of ~250 nuclear
| warheads.
|
| Your move.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| You bet they are blinking right about now, looking at each
| other. But I bet they've also planned for this scenario, and is
| getting close to the worse case.
| chmaynard wrote:
| This is a blunder. Epic will do just fine without Apple, but
| Apple is alienating people like me who use their products and are
| predisposed to support them. Our eyes are opening to their true
| nature. Full disclosure: I worked for Apple for almost 20 years.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| What true nature? Following their word and their terms for over
| a decade for all developers worldwide?
|
| Do you want to see side deals with your privacy too?
| cocktailpeanuts wrote:
| On one hand I really hope this breaks apart Apple and Google's
| duoploy in mobile, basically acting as the gatekeeper to all
| users around the world.
|
| On the other hand, I don't feel good about the way Epic went
| about this. Makes it hard to support them because they were the
| ones who first started the war by deliberately breaking the terms
| of service. There's gotta be a better way.
| toast0 wrote:
| Epic has a more clear case if Epic does what they want and
| Apple takes action against it than if Epic doesn't do what they
| want because they fear Apple will takr action against it. Now,
| the actions have taken place, there's no hypotheticals that
| courts dislike addressing.
| MaximumMadness wrote:
| Commented this in the other thread on this subject, but think
| it's still relevant here.
|
| Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins
| this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and
| other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes
| taking down a competitor.
|
| Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all
| openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that
| are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it,
| and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small
| concession to look like they're not so evil.
| [deleted]
| Voliokis wrote:
| What in god's name is with all the bootlickers in this thread? I
| have no love for Apple or Epic. But if this lawsuit leads to
| better treatment of third-party developers on the platform and
| Apple not being able to arbitrarily control what apps consumers
| get to download, I don't see why Epic is being painted as the
| "bad guy" by so many people here. Apple has been behaving in
| crazy anti-competitive ways (just look at how they historically
| treated any developer that dared make an app that competed with
| their own) for years now. It's time for the hammer to fall.
| input_sh wrote:
| I'm with you. They're both billions of dollars worth companies
| arguing about who should get which percentage of additional
| millions of dollars of profit.
|
| I'm not invested at all in this debate, but I do silently hope
| that Epic succeeds purely for the little guys who may benefit
| from that.
| nojito wrote:
| They built the platform.
|
| They maintain the platform.
|
| They promote the platform.
|
| What's arbitrary about that?
| apazzolini wrote:
| It's disingenuous to claim Apple built and promoted the
| platform by themselves - third party developers are a _huge_
| reason behind iOS 's success, and the iPhone wouldn't be what
| it is today if it only had first-party apps.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| And? Those third party developers have already been
| compensated fully based on the terms they agreed to when
| they contributed to the platform. Apple owes them nothing
| at this point. Obviously it is probably in Apple's best
| interest to treat them fairly, but that is up to Apple to
| decide.
|
| And to respond to GP. This has nothing to do with
| "bootlicking". The same thing should apply regardless of
| the company.
| eganist wrote:
| They're leveraging their control of a defacto standard
| platform to steer business.
|
| Android existing doesn't invalidate this claim.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| Exactly: a market duopoly doesn't mean they don't have
| disproportionate control over consumer choices especially
| when there are feature and ecosystem differences between
| the platforms.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| Perhaps vindictive, heavy handed, preferential, and self
| serving are more accurate terms to their app store curation?
| cnst wrote:
| I paid for my phone.
|
| I can do whatever I want with my phone.
|
| I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install
| or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the
| idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.
| Dig1t wrote:
| I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because you
| paid someone doesn't mean they are obligated to write
| software to allow you to do something with the thing you
| bought. If the thing you bought doesn't do what you want it
| to do, then buy a different thing that lets you do what you
| want. And in this case there are literally thousands of
| other phones you can buy.
| cnst wrote:
| > doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to
| allow you
|
| Apple literally doesn't have to write any software! All
| we're asking is for Apple to remove the software they've
| written that intentionally blocks any other software from
| working!
|
| Android has a checkbox to install apps from any source.
| Hardly anyone even knows about its existence, but it
| means that we don't have to have a black market for
| phones with a given app installed (context: iPhones with
| Fortnite already installed were being sold for 2k+ per
| pop on eBay when the app was blocked).
| wilshire_nc wrote:
| Yeah but you knew that's how it worked when you bought the
| phone. If you didn't like the app store model you could
| have bought an android right?
| actuator wrote:
| They control the distribution channels of a general computing
| platform at their whim.
|
| They push their own services like Apple Music by having pre
| installed apps, free app store placement, not having to pay
| the 30% cut over other competitors like Spotify. In a low
| margin business that is live or die.
|
| They force a browser like Firefox to not have its own engine
| as well.
|
| Looks quite anti competitive to me.
| justicezyx wrote:
| No, apple but the platform in the literal sense.
|
| The platform was built by every consumer, app devs, hardware
| vendors, and many others.
|
| These players of the platform voluntarily cooperate with
| apple, and allow apple the oversized power, because the
| economic values of doing that is higher than other behaviors.
|
| There isn't a moral high ground for apple, nor a particularly
| outsized contribution by apple considering their profit from
| the platform.
|
| What you said is so superficial that it does not even refer
| to the right topic.
| quotemstr wrote:
| When you build a platform and it becomes so successful that
| it forms part of the foundation for an entire society's
| technological existence, you lose the privilege of
| arbitrarily controlling that platform. Electricity companies
| don't get to skim 30% off of the revenue of any factory that
| makes widgets using the electricity company's electricity.
| Cell phone carriers don't get to skim 30% off of any orders
| placed over their networks. Apple shouldn't be able to skim
| 30% off of every transaction that happens to be made on an
| iOS device. I don't give a damn about esoteric arguments
| about Apple being a "private company" or whatever: it's
| unacceptable for society to pay a 30% tax to Apple on a big
| chunk of the economic activity of an entire society. No
| taxation without representation, right?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't call names. Your comment would be fine without the
| first sentence.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| xphilter wrote:
| Honestly, what is the difference between the App Store and
| Target? Why should a third party (or court) have any control in
| what the retailer sells?
| Hammershaft wrote:
| Target might exist alongside several other competing
| retailers on the same block. The friction for a customer to
| leave and shop at a competing retailer is low. To extend this
| analogy, The Apple store exists in a company town, and the
| friction for a customer to leave 'Appletown' shop at
| competing retailers in 'AndroidLand' is intentionally as high
| as possible [1].
|
| This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of control
| third parties should have over the App Store as retailer,
| it's an argument for why this current arrangement is
| exploitative, and not analogous to conventional retail
| platforms like Target.
|
| [1] - https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-
| how-an-a...
| scarface74 wrote:
| iPhones exist right next Android phones in every carrier
| store. The only place you will see that exclusively sells
| iPhones are Apple stores.
| my123 wrote:
| Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at
| another retailer than Target, at any time.
| eternalban wrote:
| Were you not aware of this fact when you chose iPhone over
| Android?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Android isn't much better in this regard. There is
| realistic choice of two smartphone operating system
| vendors, both of which exercise total and random control
| over their stores. If you look at the frontpage of HN
| today, several fediverse apps were just thrown off the
| Google Play store, so it's a choice between pest and
| cholera
| eternalban wrote:
| Ah, those are just pesky facts. It's so much more fun to
| play partisan geek. Don't spoil the fun.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Being aware of it doesn't mean it was your preference.
| What if you want an iPhone for the hardware and bought it
| in spite of rather than because of Apple's restrictions
| on third party apps?
|
| Moreover, the app you want may not have existed when you
| bought your first iPhone and became locked into the
| platform. Or it may have been on the iOS app store at
| that time and was subsequently removed.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| I wasn't aware that Apple would remove an extremely
| popular app from the app store without giving users any
| option to continue using it, no.
|
| I'm not particularly invested in Fortnite, but if Apple
| removes one of my favorite apps I'm going to get really
| cranky at any friend that suggests that I should have
| planned ahead for what to do if the app dev and the phone
| maker got in fight years after I bought my phone.
| my123 wrote:
| Why would that even matter? People's opinions can change
| over time.
| eternalban wrote:
| Of course they can. But he is -not- saying he is denied
| the right to change his opinion:
|
| _" Because you don't have switching costs if you want to
| shop at another retailer than Target, at any time."_
|
| But this should not be a surprise to an Apple customer.
| This is a 'feature' of Apple products.
| gsich wrote:
| You don't need Target to get your stuff. You can just buy
| somewhere else. Try that on iOS.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| This would be like if there were one single store on the
| planet and if they don't want to sell your shit everyone just
| says, "That's their right, shouldn't have gotten into the
| business of selling things."
| DivisionSol wrote:
| But there are 2 stores, and you make the choice of
| packaging for one or the other. You can also make your own
| store, if you want. (In this analogy, that is. You cannot
| make a store inside a store, that'd be silly.)
|
| Basically, you can still sell on Android, or, make your own
| phone/mobile operating system?
| kxrm wrote:
| Target doesn't have exclusive rights to control the the way I
| accessorize products I buy from them.
| renlo wrote:
| What happens when Target is the only store that 13.5% of the
| population can access? What happens if it become 25%? 50%?
| 100%? At what threshold is it proper to put in restrictions
| on Target?
| microtherion wrote:
| My understanding is that Walmart is effectively the only
| retailer in many rural areas of the US (Though I don't know
| about specific statistics).
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| This is true, and perhaps consumers in those areas should
| have more control over the choices that business
| provides. National corporations with local monopolies are
| often the least critiqued anti-consumer actor.
| gambiting wrote:
| They shouldn't, but it's not about that. Apple can sell
| whatever they like or don't on the Apple Store, that's fine.
| The problem is that they sell consumers a "general computing"
| device, and then enforcing that every single transaction on
| said device goes through them. They are not only processing
| those transactions, not only taking a cut, but also deciding
| which ones are ok and which ones aren't. Meaning, that if you
| and me wanted to do business together selling iOS apps, we
| would need to get blessing from apple. The argument here is
| that _maybe_ it shouldn 't be like this. After all, we don't
| need to ask Microsoft for permission for the same thing, and
| on Android if I don't like the rules established by Google, I
| can put my app on the Amazon store, one of the many 3rd party
| ones, or just send my customers the .apk directly - Google
| cannot stop two parties from conducting business, they can
| merely offer a convenient alternative that involves google
| getting a cut. Of course apple will respond with argument
| that this tight control is beneficial to customers - and they
| are welcome to make such argument.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| We tried that with Windows Mobile, xda-developers and cab
| files before. It didn't work.
| jpambrun wrote:
| For your analogy to make sense we would have to have
| alternative stores to buy iOS apps from.
|
| If target was the only store in the world it should not be
| able to set itself whatever profit margin it wants..
| abc-xyz wrote:
| Epic might be painted in a bad light because they're 40%
| Tencent owned, and they happen to purposely get banned and sue
| Apple (in a PR campaign style) shortly after Trump sign an
| executive order targeting Tencent's WeChat.
|
| Or people might enjoy being able to use a device without having
| to worry about viruses and whatnot.. a problem plaguing Windows
| and slowly starting to affect many Android users as well. And
| while they might feel comfortable being able to avoid such
| viruses themselves, then they likely have friends and family
| that will suffer from it (you might think it's easy not to
| install a different App Store, just like you might think it's
| easy not to click on phishing links in your mailbox.. but it
| unfortunately isn't easy for the average user).
|
| Or people might worry about losing all sorts of privacy as a
| result of the Apple being forced to open up various parts of
| their system.
| kodt wrote:
| I've noticed in gaming circles that people are very anti-Epic
| Games and will take any opposing position no matter the facts.
|
| Epic has been trying to position their own game store as a
| competitor to Steam. One of the things they have been doing is
| spending money paying for games to be exclusive to their
| platform. This is seen as the ultimate evil by gamers who want
| all of their games in one place (on Steam).
| jtdev wrote:
| Bye, Epic "I hardly new ya"
| RivieraKid wrote:
| I'm surprised there's no effort by companies to negotiate
| collectively with Apple, as one entity. A single company means
| nothing to Apple, the company often risks a big chunk of their
| revenues, Apple risks basically nothing.
|
| Surely there are things that such app developer organisation
| could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate
| users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first,
| exclusive deals, etc.
| CPLX wrote:
| Paradoxically, if a group of small businesses being harmed by a
| monopoly get together to do something about it, they can
| themselves run afoul if antitrust regulation.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| That's basically illegal.
| oneplane wrote:
| Not sure why people are surprised or consider it giant news.
|
| > The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store's
| guidelines and policies while the case is in progress - the rules
| they followed over the past ten years until they created the
| current situation themselves. Epic refused.
|
| Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not
| liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want.
| No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are
| their rules and so far you have the choice of following them
| (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
|
| The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is
| for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good
| for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and
| marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles
| and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments
| having a fight.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they
| are their rules and so far you have the choice of following
| them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
|
| A valid opinion is that those rules are illegal under current
| federal statue. Another one is that although they currently
| aren't, they should be.
|
| > Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is:
| just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
|
| Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer
| funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a
| major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
|
| It's a surprise because typically these departments have a much
| larger incentive to settle, and not to create new case law.
| It's giant news because of the potential impact to many
| individuals and to the industry as a whole.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| people familiar with Tim Sweeny's life and ideology know that
| it is an actual important issues to him that platforms be open.
|
| your cynical take is often very true but there are sometimes
| real human ideals behind things.
| xyproto wrote:
| Why does Unreal Engine have its own marketplace? Is it still
| an open platform?
| gsich wrote:
| Yes. You can import assets independently of that
| marketplace.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| Tim Sweeney may be a wonderful man who loves open platforms,
| apple pie, and kittens, but:
|
| - Android is clearly more open than iOS, but Epic is also
| suing Google. So is this really about sideloading? From that
| suit, it sure doesn't sound like it.
|
| - When you _do_ sideload Fortnite on your Android device,
| from what I understand, you can 't actually sideload Fortnite
| _directly._ Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games
| Store!
|
| It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force
| _both_ Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games
| Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store. And
| while I 'm not much of a gamer, the stories I recall about
| Epic's store in the press... well, we'll just say they didn't
| have a "so ideals! much open!" vibe to them.
|
| I think there's a lot of valid criticisms to be made about
| both the "app console" model that Apple is steadfastly
| pushing and the specific ways in which they're running the
| App Store, but I am skeptical that Epic is the general this
| particular battle needs.
| yyyk wrote:
| The reality of the legal system is that all small companies
| would just get worn out and forced to settle against Apple,
| regardless of the justice of their complaint.
|
| No company smaller than Epic could afford to file such a
| case. I wonder whether any company could become large
| enough without having some way for people to argue that "it
| is not the general this particular battle needs".
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games Store!
|
| I remember when Valve did that with HL2 and Steam. The
| outrage was similar [1]. Look how it turned out for Valve.
|
| [1] https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-
| life-...
| filoleg wrote:
| Valve was introducing a new kind of an experience with
| their store, because there were no digital stores for
| games before that (that were actually used; because no
| doubt someone in the comments will point out to some
| obscure digital game store that existed at that time, but
| no one has heard of or used).
|
| Valve was not fighting an existing store using "stores
| are bad" as an argument, only to introduce another store.
| Which is exactly what Epic is doing here.
| ericflo wrote:
| Epic has been very clear from the beginning that they
| would like to viably run a store on the major mobile
| hardware, they are not claiming that stores are bad in
| general.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Open and closed is relative, as nothing is completely open
| unless it's open source. Epic game store isn't completely
| open. He's just defining his version open to suit his bottom
| line.
| SXX wrote:
| That's true, but Epic is more of a friend to open source
| than Apple: they donated money to both Blender and Godot
| Engine. Also Epic benefit from game development being more
| open in general even if their own engine is not open
| source.
|
| If they gonna win in battle with Apple and will be allowed
| to have their own store then it's also make it possible to
| setup more of alternative stores for e.g open source
| software without waiting for jailbreak.
| DevKoala wrote:
| Then why did he sign with Tencent? There is no open platform
| competition in China.
| aftergibson wrote:
| This openness ideology hardly extends to the under the table
| exclusivity deals Epic Store has with a number of titles?
| esrauch wrote:
| That seems meaningfully different. The openness here is you
| own a piece of hardware, another company wants to sell you
| software to run on your hardware; can that two-party
| interaction complete without an adversarial third party
| being involved?
|
| The answer to that question on iOS is a "strong no", on
| Android it's a "yes, but". On PC that answer is yes
| regardless if the actions of Epic Store.
| jmull wrote:
| It doesn't look like the unreal marketplace is open. Nor the
| unreal engine itself.
| danbolt wrote:
| I feel like his standards for openness are always up to where
| Epic's business model is a best fit. I've never heard him
| suggest something like letting me run my own Fortnite server
| or something of the sort.
|
| That said, you're right that he's consistent with these
| views, especially how he was against UWP during its heyday.
| [1]
|
| [1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-04-tim-
| sweene...
| 1_player wrote:
| He likes his platforms to be so open he openly said he
| doesn't care about porting his game store to Linux.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| > people familiar with Tim Sweeny's life and ideology know
| that it is an actual important issues to him that platforms
| be open.
|
| I get that, but I admit to finding it hard to square with his
| statements[1] that he is fine with game consoles not being
| open. Seems a strange dichotomy.
|
| [1]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:og
| lnAi...
| SXX wrote:
| I really not going to be surprised that in case Epic manage
| to win over Apple they'll put pressure on console
| manufacturers next.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| I would presume so as well. If Apple loses their case, I
| imagine we will see big changes in many platforms. I
| would also posit... much higher prices for hardware[1] to
| make up for the "income gap" too, presumably.
|
| [1]: hard to image game consoles being sold at a loss if
| they couldn't make it up in fees on the other side.
| n42 wrote:
| interesting, then, that he is solely responsible for
| introducing marketplace exclusivity deals to PC gaming.
| wilshire_nc wrote:
| If something is exclusive to a platform that's free to use,
| who cares? It's not like xbox vs playstation where you have
| to shell out a few hundred dollars to play an exclusive
| title.
| rsweeney21 wrote:
| PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much different
| than CHARGING game developers 30% of their revenue.
|
| Also, the PC is an open platform. Game developers don't
| have to use Epic's or anyone else' store to distribute
| games on PC. With iOS you have no choice.
| n42 wrote:
| sure, there is a difference for the developer. anyone who
| is deluding themselves into thinking that Epic is
| fighting for the consumer here will be sorely
| disappointed.
|
| Epic recently raised $1.78 billion dollars in capital.
| how do you think they intend to deliver a return on such
| a massive investment?
|
| anyone paying attention to their moves sees this as what
| it is. Epic wants to be the exclusive destination to
| build, buy and play video games.
|
| they're fighting Apple because they beat them to the
| punch. this is not some idealistic martyrdom. it's multi-
| billion dollar company fights multi-trillion dollar
| company for market share.
| user5994461 wrote:
| Indeed, it is paying in order to make sure that 100% of
| developer revenues go through one platform... the
| platform may or may not take a 30% cut.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much
| different than CHARGING game developers 30% of their
| revenue.
|
| It definitely is - one store, Epic, offers deals
| publishers can't refuse to make a game exclusive to their
| storefront which limits a consumer's ability to use a
| platform of their choice to purchase a game. The other,
| steam, puts no limits on where you can distribute your
| game (unless you use assets from Valve's own games, but I
| digress) and has done no exclusivity deals that would
| force a game to only use their store. Publishers are free
| to use steam if they want to have 30% taken, but
| otherwise they can completely forego steam in their
| distribution.
| gsich wrote:
| Can't refuse? Is this the Godfather now?
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Didn't you know that Epic holds developers hostage until
| they agree to their terms? I thought this was common
| knowledge!
| DivisionSol wrote:
| Just like Apple holds a gun to developer's heads to
| develop for the iOS.
|
| Epic is at least bringing the joy of console exclusives
| to the desktop. Innovative!
| judge2020 wrote:
| https://screenrant.com/borderlands-3-sales-5-million-
| unites-...
|
| > a recent financial report suggested that Epic paid over
| $10 million to get Control as an Epic Game Store
| exclusive on PC, and it's possible the company has done
| the same to snag some of the more important releases of
| the year.
|
| A little hard to turn down 10 million.
| ericflo wrote:
| And yet, today you can buy Control on Steam.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > A little hard to turn down 10 million.
|
| What if the game would have made $20m if it was non-
| exclusive?
|
| Exclusivity deals mean both parties - or either party -
| is making a huge risk _or_ there 's information-asymmetry
| involved.
| mxfh wrote:
| Sure Origin was a failure, but that much of one? Anyone
| remembers "only on Origin".
| n42 wrote:
| those were all EA titles, so EA had their own publisher
| exclusive marketplace. Tim Sweeney introduced buying out
| third-party publishers with exclusivity clauses.
|
| edit: there's a good analogy in another thread -- only
| being able to buy a Nintendo game at GameStop and not
| Best Buy.
| slavik81 wrote:
| To be clear, you'd be perfectly happy if Epic bought the
| developers outright and made the games exclusive to the
| Epic store? To me, that seems like the same end result
| for consumers.
| john-shaffer wrote:
| We've had decades of exclusivity deals for one console or
| another. Those actually prevented people from playing the
| games without shelling out for an extra console.
|
| Total War: Troy is exclusive to Epic Games Store for one
| year before it comes to Steam. If you got the game on its
| release date, Epic gave it to you for free. To play it, you
| need one more launcher to go along with Steam, Battle.net,
| GOG, and various custom launchers. What is the harm being
| done here?
|
| I like Steam, but I doubt that it will be good in the long
| term for it to be completely dominant. It needs a solid
| competitor.
| therouwboat wrote:
| I dont care about free games, I have more money than free
| time. All I want is that games work on my platform, which
| is linux. They killed rocket league, because its not
| worth it to support platform that is used by 0.3% of the
| playerbase. Somehow they managed to do it before epic
| monies, but now its just too expensive or something. So
| fuck em.
| MikeKusold wrote:
| That's a false equivalency. A more apt comparison would
| be if you could only buy a game at GameStop for one year,
| while all the Best But shoppers weren't able to buy the
| game from their preferred retail store.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| This is fairly common in retail. I've never heard a
| complaint about it before in that regard.
| mrgordon wrote:
| Well not everyone wants to have to have ten game stores
| with ten custom launchers if they only have ten games
| installed
|
| Also Epic may control the release in some ways. For
| example, Civ 6 on Epic is PC only but on Steam it's PC &
| Mac. So I bought it on Epic and then realized I can't
| play with my friends who are on Macs.
|
| Why would I want an entire new game store, an app that
| they've chosen to make incompatible with one of the two
| major computing platforms, and yet another thing to keep
| updated, minimized, and logged into.
|
| I'm all for competition but exclusivity deals are overall
| negative for the consumer. It's worth $10 million to get
| a new game exclusively for Epic to force everyone to use
| a store they don't want to install or use because they'll
| end up spending $100 million on other games. It's an
| effective business tactic but it's not exactly in my
| interest.
| gsich wrote:
| Which doesn't make the PC a closed platform.
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| >> The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a
| fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole
| "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just
| sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the
| issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of
| legal departments having a fight.
|
| An upvote didn't seem like enough, that is a devastatingly
| accurate appraisal IMO
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| If Epic Games doesn't get it's way will China give Apple the
| boot?
|
| Are we watching a _cold war_ unfold in front of our eyes?
| phatfish wrote:
| If only it were really that interesting.
| user5994461 wrote:
| Highly unlikely, the iPhone is very common and a major status
| symbol in China.
|
| People making up the government are not gonna ban their
| phones (or their son's and daughter's iPhones, considering
| the 70 year old politicians might not be strong users of
| smartphone themselves).
| abc-xyz wrote:
| They might if Apple is forced to ban WeChat and other
| Chinese apps from the App Store worldwide (which is why
| Tencent/CCP is having all these proxy wars targeting Apple,
| with the one purpose of making it possible to side-load
| apps so that Trump's executive orders will hurt
| Tencent/Bytedance (and future Chinese companies) a lot
| less). The timing of 40% Tencent-owned Epic Games' PR
| lawsuit is no coincidence.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
|
| At the _expense_ of the users, in both the figurative _and_ the
| literal sense of the word.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Ultimately if Apple bends if will be good for the users in
| the long run. That's what matters.
|
| And if Apple doesn't bend, we need antitrust action against
| these monopolies anyways.
| laumars wrote:
| People keep making this argument regarding the App Store
| but that's not how monopolies are defined. Apple might have
| strict control over their walled garden but their walled
| garden itself isn't the only walled garden. As such, people
| can buy different handsets running different operating
| systems and thus use a different repository on them. The
| fact that Apple don't allow other repos on iOS doesn't make
| it a monopoly in the legal sense because that would be like
| walking into a high street supermarket and demanding they
| stock a competitors own brand. If, however, that happened
| to be the only (or within a slender margin of that)
| supermarket chain in the country and they still refused to
| work with a specific supplier who makes a competing
| product, then there _might_ be grounds to file for
| antitrust.
| sjy wrote:
| But Epic _did_ start an antitrust case, and so far a
| judge has found that "serious questions do exist" and
| granted a temporary restraining order. That wouldn't have
| happened if Epic was as obviously wrong about the
| monopoly question as you say. https://cdn.vox-
| cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...
| laumars wrote:
| You've cherry picked a sentence there but the full
| paragraph actually has a less optimistic tone:
|
| > Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act,
| the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair
| Competition. Based on a review of the current limited
| record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that
| Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a
| likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the
| antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that
| serious questions do exist.
|
| So no, a judge hasn't suggested there is a winnable
| antitrust case here but he has acknowledged there are
| serious questions regarding unfair competition.
| sydd wrote:
| The current situation is called a duopoly. There are 2
| walled gardens with approximately 50-50% revenue share in
| the developed world. One makes it almost impossible to
| distribute your own app on these, the other makes it just
| very hard. Both should be broken up, it's a bleak
| distopia that 2 companies headquartered a few miles from
| eachother decide who can publish software on mobile
| devices.
| laumars wrote:
| Indeed but that wasn't the point I was making. I was
| saying those who argue the App Store as a monopoly (ie
| because it's the only repository on iOS) miss the point
| of what a monopoly legally means.
|
| I agree what we have is a duopoly.
| anonymousab wrote:
| If Apple bends it will be to settle and cut a special deal
| with Epic.
|
| They will never let it go far enough to truly threaten
| their walled garden.
| TotempaaltJ wrote:
| I don't know that that's gonna be enough for Sweeney at
| this point.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > If Apple bends it will be to settle and cut a special
| deal with Epic.
|
| But then who isn't going to want to take their place and
| get their own "special deal"?
| fooey wrote:
| It's not even legal departments having a fight, it's Tim
| Sweeney tilting at windmills
|
| I 100% believe that 3rd party app stores is a hill Apple is
| willing to die on. I would guess they're more likely to get
| rid of "apps" entirely than open up their ecosystem.
| TotempaaltJ wrote:
| > would guess they're more likely to get rid of "apps"
| entirely than open up their ecosystem.
|
| You believe they'd rather give up the iPhone than
| compromise on a more consumer-friendly ecosystem policy?
| dandellion wrote:
| Maybe. We're talking about the same company that only
| allows their software to run on their own hardware. It
| looks like having full control of the entire user
| experience is a sacred rule that they must never break.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| The iPhone had PWAs (under a different name) before it
| had the App Store though.
|
| I'd wager most App Store apps on the iPhone could be
| ported-over to PWA and retain 90% of their functionality
| - and people would still buy the iPhone.
|
| Looking at my Settings > Screen Time history for the past
| week, these are the apps I use the most (in no particular
| order) and how I feel they would work as a PWA:
|
| 1. Microsoft iOS Remote Desktop Client: this could be a
| PWA with a WebSocket+<canvas>-based interaction surface.
|
| 2. Twitter: there's nothing I use in the iOS native app
| that can't be done in their web-app.
|
| 3. Google Maps: I think I'd be okay if I had to use the
| built-in Apple Maps instead.
|
| 4. Telegram / WhatsApp / Slack etc: Apps like these can't
| be used offline anyway, so being PWAs web-apps is also
| fine. As Slack is an Electron App (on Windows at least)
| then porting it over to a PWA is straightforward.
|
| 5. Authy / Google Authenticator / Azure Authenticator:
| I'll admit this is one that can't be done properly as a
| PWA right now because there's no way to reliably and
| securely persist client-side secrets.
|
| 6. Star Walk: this is one that can't be PWA: while the 3D
| world can be rendered in a WebGL <canvas>, it needs a
| large offline data cache and PWAs can only store 50MB
| presently (and that's 50MB as text, not binary data).
|
| Most of the other apps I use are Apple's own or built-in
| to the device (iWork, Notes, Camera, iMessage, Mail,
| etc).
|
| As for games: I stopped buying and installing iOS games
| on my phone and iPad a few years ago because there's no
| way to reliably download and "keep" games and apps you've
| bought indefinitely (e.g. as IPA files). Once a publisher
| removes an app or game from the App Store and you've
| removed it from your phone then you're SOL - you will get
| a refund if you contact iTunes Customer Support, but I
| view games as art - and the idea for a games publisher to
| unilaterally prevent me from accessing content I've paid
| for is horrible and reeks of Orwell's Memory Hole.
|
| (Besides games-as-art that I've bought... and lost, the
| only other types of games I see in the stores are crass
| freemium bollocks - and I won't let myself get hooked on
| that business model).
|
| (I think the last game I ever got from the App Store was
| "Rainbrow" (
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/rainbrow/id1312458558 ) -
| which was an experimental game using the then-new iPhone
| X's face detection camera where you move a character on-
| screen using your eyebrows - that was almost 3 years
| ago).
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| Currently, Epic's existing users on iOS are able to make in-
| app purchases without paying Apple's 30% fee, which is
| literally saving them an expense. They are better off than
| before. Epic being blocked from issuing updates may
| eventually make them worse off (and it makes prospective new
| users worse off).
| [deleted]
| oneplane wrote:
| Perhaps, but that is nothing new, now is it? I'm not sure why
| this case would be special... it's definitely not the scale,
| numbers or competition, because those are practically the
| same on plenty of other (non-IT) inter-corporate schemes.
| Just because you don't hear about them as much doesn't mean
| they aren't bigger or less relevant.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I know it's very fashionable on Twitter to say the word "post-
| capitalism," but how is Epic in any way operating in a post-
| capitalist environment? They face heavy, almost capitalist-
| ideal levels of competition in every market where they compete.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| > The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a
| fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole
| "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just
| sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the
| issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of
| legal departments having a fight.
|
| I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support
| companies when their policy advances my interests.
| oneplane wrote:
| But do they? Or is that just a facade to influence public
| opinion. Don't forget that all large companies like to
| personify when it suits them, but are just legal entities
| with the upsides or persons but none of the downsides or
| actual accountability. That goes for Apple, Google, Epic and
| all the other big ones all the same. It's also good to
| remember that it's not "all the people that work at the
| company", but mostly a bunch of legal people, and a small
| blip on the calendar of the CEO.
| MaximumMadness wrote:
| Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins
| this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and
| other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes
| taking down a competitor.
|
| Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all
| openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that
| are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it,
| and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small
| concession to look like they're not so evil.
| vernie wrote:
| Sweeney's doing a great job of portraying himself as an
| insufferable tool on Twitter. Keep it up, Tim!
| cnst wrote:
| I'm actually happy Apple didn't make a small concession.
|
| I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a
| small user being prevented from using the device I have paid
| for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on
| my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a
| backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on
| this.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Microsoft explicitly did _not_ back Epic over the issue of the
| 30% cut, just taking away their developer license to use the
| Unreal engine.
| microtherion wrote:
| > Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed
| Epic
|
| Oh, it's going to be so much fun when Epic wins and Taylor
| Swift decides to apply the same legal reasoning to the cut she
| pays Spotify for her music...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Does Spotify control one of the two major mobile phone
| platforms and use that control to require all their users to
| use only their music service?
| threeseed wrote:
| Does Spotify control one of the two major music platforms
| and use that control to require artists to use only their
| music service (via exclusives)?
|
| And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone if
| Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Does Spotify control one of the two major music
| platforms and use that control to require artists to use
| only their music service (via exclusives)?
|
| Exclusives aren't mandatory. The artists get paid extra
| for that and can decline it if they want to.
|
| > And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone
| if Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ?
|
| The analogy to "their music service" is Apple requiring
| iPhone users to use exclusively the iOS app store.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| The difference would be that the same iPhone has access to
| Taylor Swift through Spotify, Apple Music, Play Music (does
| that even exist anymore?) and so on.
|
| Put the app store on the same level of competition and level
| the playing field of Spotify vs Apple Music in regards to the
| 30% subscription fee.
| slivanes wrote:
| I would like the developer to have the choice of what percent
| Apple gets (e.g. slider from 10% -> 30%) and that also
| determines the level of support (and discoverability on the App
| store?) that Apple gives. Would that type of system work?
| MaximumMadness wrote:
| It certainly has the makings of a good idea.
|
| There are lots of questions around compensation equality
| (i.e. the big companies get richer, the poor get charged
| more) but something besides the blanket 30% rule based on
| some metric sounds feasible to me
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| Sure, if only Apple would itemize the support costs,
| developers could see how much support each position on the
| slider will earn us. Surely this won't reveal that it's
| almost pure profit.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Microsoft is playing politics, they act just like Apple on
| XBox.
| radley wrote:
| Really? That's so strange. I swear I thought I could buy XBox
| games from other stores like Amazon, Target, and Walmart if
| Microsoft were to kick them out of their store. I can even
| buy used games on CraigsList.
|
| How are they acting the same?
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Microsoft takes about the same cut regardless of the
| distribution method.
| Touche wrote:
| Does Microsoft dictate what a publisher can charge for
| games on other platforms? Because Apple does.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| I have no idea I know Steam is putting the same
| limitation no differential pricing other than bundles and
| sales.
|
| I won't be surprised if Microsoft has some clauses with
| their publishers not to have a game for cheaper on
| competing platforms.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Apple does no such thing.
| Touche wrote:
| Yes, you can't charge more for an app on the App Store
| than you charge on Android.
|
| edit: this used to be the case, it's possible this has
| changed and I didn't know it.
| radley wrote:
| Hrm, that's not what their website says:
|
| > There are no fees to apply to ID@Xbox, to submit a game
| to certification, publish, or update your games. There is
| a very modest one-time cost associated with development
| for the Universal Windows Platform.
|
| https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id
|
| It looks like the big costs are insurance and the ratings
| boards (but this post is 6 years old):
|
| https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-
| game...
| dogma1138 wrote:
| With severe limitations, you have to use all of the Xbox
| Live features including having multiplayer.
|
| You still need to pay for ESRB ratings and other things.
|
| The SDKs that are available for this program are also
| heavily limited it's basically only for UWP compatible
| apps, and while they didn't put it yet it looks like
| there will be further limitations down the line including
| ensuring full cross platform compatibility including with
| IOS and Android.
|
| So yes if you build a game using their more limited SDK
| and implement all Xbox Live features they won't take a
| fee other than dev account fees.
|
| And we aren't talking about indie devs we're talking
| about fucking Epic Games.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to
| develop and publish on that platform overall.
|
| Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end
| users.
|
| Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub
| went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
|
| Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain
| genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their
| premium services.
|
| How Tinder hasn't been sued to oblivion I'm still not sure it
| seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were
| lucky that they don't employ differential pricing based on race
| yet.
| MaximumMadness wrote:
| To clarify, these companies are certainly not absolved of
| doing the same exact thing, but the current news isn't about
| them, it's about Apple, and they're going to make good use of
| that
| dogma1138 wrote:
| These are all opportunistic companies that don't care about
| consumers which have the same or worse overall practices
| than Apple.
| nojs wrote:
| Do you have a source with more info about Tinder pricing
| based on gender and sexual orientation?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| https://www.xbox.com/en-us/Developers/id
|
| Indie devs can publish on Xbox for a token fee (no % of
| revenue taken).
| dogma1138 wrote:
| See this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310823
| simongr3dal wrote:
| > Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to
| develop and publish on that platform overall.
|
| And yet Epic has beef with Apple. So Microsoft must managed
| their relationship better than Apple has done to make Epic
| satisfied enough to not pull a stunt like they have with
| Apple.
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| If you're claiming that Spotify would get all the benefit of
| a break in the fee, you're implicitly claiming that it
| currently bears all the economic burden of the fee (ie. it
| doesn't pass on the fee to users). Spotify currently charges
| $13 to sign up in iOS and $10 to sign up on the web. This is
| strong evidence that Spotify is currently passing through the
| fee to users. It seems much more likely that Spotify would
| give iOS users a price break if the fee was cut. Music
| streaming is a competitive market, so they don't have much
| choice if everyone gets the same break.
| xwdv wrote:
| Supporting Epic in this fight is just setting a dangerous
| precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate
| platform owners into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't
| do it.
| dkarp wrote:
| Epic is still the under dog here. They're nothing compared to
| Apple.
|
| Even if this is all in Epic's selfish best interest, that
| doesn't matter if their interest is more aligned with smaller
| app developers' interests.
|
| The balance of power is still shifted well towards Apple.
| gambiting wrote:
| Weeeeell.....yes, except that Epic has Tencent behind their
| back, and while Apple is still bigger, Tencent isn't that far
| behind.
| icebraining wrote:
| True, but how much is Tencent really willing to dump behind
| this fight? There's only so much upside for them even if
| Epic wins.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| How much would the CCP be willing to dump behind a fight
| to make one of the most valuable US company/brands in the
| world look bad?
|
| I'm betting.. a lot.
| gambiting wrote:
| I guess that's what remains to be seen. But Epic seems to
| be throwing their most valuable property at it right now,
| so they must have some degree of confidence that a larger
| player will back them on this.
| 8note wrote:
| Apple seems to be the big player here, no?
|
| And it seems like Apple has already given the big players
| whatever terms they want, and epic is too small to get the same
| treatment
| gambiting wrote:
| Absolutely disagree, this article made me really see both sides
| and how apple is in the wrong here:
|
| https://stratechery.com/2020/rethinking-the-app-store/
| [deleted]
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| How do you reconcile this opinion with the _glaringly obvious_
| counter that Apple swings its weight around in _exactly that
| fashion_?
| xwdv wrote:
| A company should have the right to enforce the terms for its
| own platform.
| gambiting wrote:
| No, I think what they mean is that for instance, Apple
| Music is on Android, but Apple takes payments through its
| own platform, not through Google Play, therefore denying
| Google their 30% cut on apple music payments. Many smaller
| companies are not able to negotiate the same thing.
| xwdv wrote:
| Oh I didn't know. I guess supporting Epic means that kind
| of behavior will just continue if they win...
| icebraining wrote:
| That's very unlikely, because the court can't force Apple
| to provide a special deal to Epic. Whatever decision they
| arrive at, it must be generally applicable.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Massive off-topic aside: Would you mind stop referring to
| me as _he_ , and more generally don't assume someones
| gender identity. Sorry about it, just shitting me off a
| bit lately.
| gambiting wrote:
| _Huge_ apologies, I normally just use "they" when I
| don't know the gender, honestly no idea why I didn't do
| that here. Sorry about that.
| [deleted]
| yyyk wrote:
| Not if they're anti-competitive, like selectively using
| private APIs or forcing developers to use unrelated
| services (i.e. Apple payment processors).
| Jare wrote:
| Wait, Epic is the big player in this fight?
| tgb wrote:
| I assume that the Epic supporters rather are hoping to get
| Apple to reduce the 30% on all transactions (or on all
| transactions of some type), not just to get Epic to be a
| special case. I'm not sure they have a case, but I think you're
| misrepresenting them.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Is their way to cover them selves in court. Otherwise it
| makes no difference to them. To ask for themselves or
| everyone
| icebraining wrote:
| Well, of course; if someone is supporting a company's
| position because of that company's "character", that would
| be absurd indeed. Both sides are doing it for profit. That
| doesn't mean we can't support one or the other on other
| grounds.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| big players already get special terms from apple
| methodin wrote:
| With no skin in the game, I could just as easily counter with:
|
| Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous
| precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate
| platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want.
| Don't do it.
|
| Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these
| discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party
| or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from
| both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps.
| Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.
| xwdv wrote:
| It's a flawed argument, developers don't come saying "we'll
| give you 30% of our revenue if you let us build on your
| platform".
|
| If they don't like the terms they can simply choose to not
| develop there.
| tortasaur wrote:
| Or they can do what they're currently doing.
| icebraining wrote:
| And if Apple doesn't like US antitrust law, they can simply
| not make the App Store available in the US.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>If they don't like the terms they can simply choose to
| not develop there.
|
| Sure, but sometimes, as a society, we decide that this is
| simply not ok.
|
| I know this is not a completely correct comparison, but the
| main counter against forcing businesses to accept non-white
| customers was "well, they can simply go somewhere else,
| what's the big deal". We as a society decided that no,
| actually, it is a big deal, and regardless of whether you
| can "simply" go somewhere else or not, you shouldn't have
| to.
|
| I'm hoping that this will be the first victory in a string
| of rulings forcing platform holders to open them up,
| because we value that more than we value the platform
| holders ability to keep them closed. Apple just happened to
| be first.
| yibg wrote:
| This is like saying if you don't like how your government
| is run, just move somewhere else. So basically never push
| for improvements.
| halocupcake wrote:
| Yes, because buying an Android phone instead of an iPhone
| is like moving to another country.
|
| As a consumer, you can push for improvements by voting
| with your wallet and flat out not buying Apple products.
| As a developer, you can push for improvements by not
| supporting that platform. Given that you have
| alternatives to Apple both as a developer and as a
| consumer, I don't think there's any justification for the
| government to force Apple to accept Epic blatantly
| breaking the terms they agreed to comply with.
| system2 wrote:
| I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day. Of
| course no one will do it but I simply hate everything about these
| apps forcing parents to pay small fees for stupid pixels because
| their kids begs them to do it.
|
| Sorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and
| have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money
| on tiny cellphone games.
|
| My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is
| in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over
| $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally
| gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed
| I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| Ads are worse. Micro-transactions are the only viable funding
| model that preserves some amount of user privacy.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Or you could actually sell the game for a one time fee.
| fjdjsmsm wrote:
| They could just charge a single upfront amount of money.
| mrtksn wrote:
| > I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day.
|
| What's the alternative? I'm in love with the micro transactions
| model because the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or
| high upfront fees.
|
| On the games I play I rarely buy anything, don't see ads but
| their business is healthy and the games are fantastic and
| regularly updated with new content.
|
| I casually play Asphalt 9, SimCity BuildIt and PUBG, probably
| have hundreds if not thousands of hours on each and spent
| probably less than $20 till now. If that's not a great deal, I
| don't know what is.
|
| I also bought games like Monument Valley or Limbo and similar.
| While the experience is also top notch, the upfront payment
| feels steep and the developers don't update the games so the
| play time is considerably less.
| TheNorthman wrote:
| > I rarely buy anything, don't see ads but their business is
| healthy
|
| Where do you think the money comes from, then? Ultimately,
| your `fantastic' experience comes at the cost of innumerable
| singular sites of suffering from the children and addicts
| _who do_ buy them.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Good for them. There are controls for kids and if some
| people subsidize the rest, I don't have a problem with
| that.
|
| Some people taking the tab for the rest isn't new. Some
| people have more money than sense, that's alright.
|
| These games are high quality entertainment, if some people
| want to spend money on them, that's not a bad thing.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I see this as a huge failure in parenting - how come kids can
| actually spend those money? Why in the heck would you put in
| your credit card on a kids phone?
|
| Heck, I never put in mine, I am perfectly fine with free apps
| that cover vast array of my usage. I don't game on the phone
| though. If my kids won't either, I can call it a small victory
| in parenting. If they will, either they earn the money
| themselves, receive gift (not from me that's for sure), or they
| will have to suffer subpar free-to-play variant of the game.
| Still a win.
|
| I know, peer pressure and all that, but what happened to proper
| parenting and guiding children a bit through life?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Agreed, but it sounds pretty petty to say you surely won't
| gift your kids money for apps. Why not let them do what they
| want with your gift? Probably would end up a good lesson when
| they realize how much of a waste the apps are when you have
| limited resources.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| FWIW, Epic removing the gambling aspect to loot boxes a lot on
| Fortnite: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47039090
|
| I am alright with cosmetic microtransactions, but I think "loot
| boxes" should be relegated to rewards for play.
| Microtransactions should be to buy specific items... but leave
| loot boxes as a way to get random ones for free through normal
| play.
| user5994461 wrote:
| Be clear to the kids that they don't have permissions to spend
| money in apps, then systematically request for refund and
| charge back if the app doesn't refund you.
|
| Apps have no basis to deceive children into spending money.
| Most of their practices are outright illegal depending on the
| jurisdiction (latin Europe), shouldn't have mercy on them.
| csunbird wrote:
| There are bad developers will not pay your money back and
| keep their 5 bucks and only refund after a long, long
| process. They feed on this behavior, for each customer do not
| challenge those purchases they make free money.
|
| When all the payments are forced to go through a trusted
| processor with correct parental controls for all apps in the
| platform, you guarantee that your kid will not make any
| uninformed purchases.
|
| The thing about fraud is, if you do not stop it completely,
| it grows exponentially.
| leptoniscool wrote:
| Apple is a monopoly. When Microsoft was investigated and fined
| for anti-trust behaviors, it hasn't engaged in this level of
| abuse.
| protomyth wrote:
| _it hasn 't engaged in this level of abuse._
|
| Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an
| alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the
| 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
| bitxbit wrote:
| Might be an unpopular opinion but I don't think they are acting
| to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be
| equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not
| allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty
| adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now,
| do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a
| decade ago when having a half decent working app almost
| guaranteed you revenue.
| cnst wrote:
| > What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone
| to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
|
| How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been
| available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto
| ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide
| use today that does not support Gecko or Blink?
|
| Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality.
| scarface74 wrote:
| That is a provably false claim.
|
| Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc
|
| Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music
|
| Books - Kindle.
|
| Maps - Google Maps
|
| Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail
|
| ...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android).
| Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because
| they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't
| do it.
| threeseed wrote:
| Those are security restrictions.
|
| Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to
| all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for
| premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent
| this.
|
| And you can use a third party browser. You just can't be
| dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for
| JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose
| of having an app curation process.
| [deleted]
| yyyk wrote:
| >What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone
| to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
|
| There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows
| user could have easily installed Netscape.
|
| Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that
| the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was
| considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to
| help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will
| smack them down).
| stale2002 wrote:
| > hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone
| to use its apps and not allow any competing apps
|
| This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd
| party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing
| competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use
| the apple app store.
|
| > about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
|
| No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the
| iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple
| preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
| pier25 wrote:
| You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even
| browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other
| browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView).
|
| I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS
| devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
| threeseed wrote:
| Apple does NOT prevent other browsing engines.
|
| It prevents you from dynamically compiling code at runtime
| which is a needed rule because otherwise apps would just
| run around the curation process.
| bitxbit wrote:
| Fair point but that's largely due to security not Apple's
| desire to lockout other browsers.
| flyingswift wrote:
| That is a large benefit of the doubt...
| criley2 wrote:
| >Fair point but that's largely due to security not
| Apple's desire to lockout other browsers
|
| Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the
| "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior
| too.
| pier25 wrote:
| I seriously doubt it but I guess we'll never know.
| Falell wrote:
| Justify "largely", please.
|
| I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to
| "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly
| walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and
| users".
|
| Edit: grammar
| amelius wrote:
| But where is the equivalent of the browser-ballot screen? [1]
| Why don't we apply the same principle to the App store?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
| scarface74 wrote:
| From your article.
|
| _Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16]
| suggesting that these smaller competing developers were
| gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such
| as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling
| into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen._
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera
| and Firefox losing market share in Europe
|
| To Chrome, not IE/Edge, which benefits from the browser
| ballot as much as they do.
| scarface74 wrote:
| If that were the case, you would have seen Chrome's
| market share increase faster in the EU than the US where
| there was no browser ballot. That wasn't the case.
| hnarayanan wrote:
| In what metric is Apple a monopoly?
| ahnick wrote:
| Market share in the US mobile OS market.
|
| https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-
| sta...
| Matticus_Rex wrote:
| Was that supposed to show Apple was a monopoly? Because
| that's not what it shows.
| yyyk wrote:
| It's irrelevant whether Apple are technically a monopoly or
| not; Apple abuses their iOS market power to force vendors to
| use their payment system.
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own
| payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and
| entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged 30%. They have
| not increased that as their marketshare increased. Should
| Apple be forced to allow an app to be released free and
| then accept payments outside of Apple?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer
| bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment
| processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing
| that justifies receiving any money at all?
| yyyk wrote:
| Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee.
| How about that?
|
| To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to
| allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive
| arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems,
| and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish
| (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it
| difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| > Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a
| fee. How about that?
|
| Yes, they could do that. I just don't understand the
| reason why they should be forced to.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Not being sarcastic, and I'm misunderstanding what you
| mean: how can Apple abuse their market power over something
| they alone created?
| yyyk wrote:
| Two reasons:
|
| 1) They use their market power over something they
| created in order to gain advantage in a market they did
| not create (payment processors). There's no technical
| reason to link the two except that's it's good for
| Apple's bottom line.
|
| 2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple
| rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting
| apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with
| implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple
| overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
| gpm wrote:
| Very broadly speaking it's perfectly legal to have a
| monopoly on something, and Apple has a monopoly on the
| thing they created, and that's fine.
|
| It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to
| acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms
| society, and that is the claim here.
|
| Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft
| used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on
| other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
| Matticus_Rex wrote:
| That... rather shifts the goalposts, no?
| yyyk wrote:
| No. Antitrust law doesn't apply to monopolies alone, and
| the requirement to use Apple's payment system is a key
| part of Epic's complaint.
| bagacrap wrote:
| Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a
| monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree
| Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing you can say
| is, "I don't think Apple is being very nice."
|
| And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are
| curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which
| products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
| yyyk wrote:
| Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying,
| legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get
| the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US
| is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and
| there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it.
|
| Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft
| and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law
| acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is
| illegal.
| sjy wrote:
| The law (Sherman Act) does actually say that "Every
| person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ...
| any part of the trade or commerce among the several
| States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty
| of a felony." The test you mentioned is basically an
| attempt to explain the meaning of this contentious word
| "monopolize."
| scarface74 wrote:
| The IBM case was dropped after 13 years and nothing came
| of up.
|
| Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a
| license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the
| PC shipped with Windows.
| yyyk wrote:
| The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC
| became an open system, so they definitely had a market
| effect.
|
| The MS case was different, but some elements are similar
| (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps
| which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things
| MS never dreamt they could do.
| scarface74 wrote:
| IBM didn't open up because of suit on mainframes. They
| really didn't care about the personal computer market and
| just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for
| the operating system.
|
| The use of "private APIs" is a red herring. _Every_
| software developer for the last forty years knows about
| the concept of a public interface that they promise not
| to change and private implementation details. Some
| languages force it and others do it by convention.
| benologist wrote:
| "The kind of common theme is the abuse of their market power
| to maintain their market dominance, to crush competitors, to
| exclude folks from their platform and to earn monopoly
| rents."
|
| - the antitrust committee investigating them
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-
| investigation...
| IncRnd wrote:
| Apple is a monopoly that controls what applications can run
| on iPhones. Being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. What
| is illegal is for a monopoly to engage in predatory
| practices, which Apple clearly does.
| misnome wrote:
| I think that the word "clearly" isn't so obvious as you
| seem to think.
| IncRnd wrote:
| I was referring to the specific point that is mentioned
| in the article, that Apple demanded 30% from Fortnite
| sales that had nothing to do with being listed in the
| store. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
| partyboy wrote:
| every
| [deleted]
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Epic asserts that they maintain an illegal monopoly of iOS
| app distribution.
| scarface74 wrote:
| But surprisingly Epic didn't go after the console makers..
| nobodyshere wrote:
| In having App Store as the only way to install common apps
| for their devices.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| But that also applies to every single current game console
| and almost all other modern devices with app support,
| ranging from smartwatches to home automation.
|
| That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge
| competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had
| Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5%
| market share? I think not.
| gpm wrote:
| > But that also applies to every single current game
| console and almost all other modern devices with app
| support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation.
|
| That sounds like an argument that "every single current
| game console and almost all other modern devices with app
| support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution
| on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not
| obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the
| law just because they chose to sue one that is.
| hnarayanan wrote:
| His point is that it's like saying "Coke has a monopoly
| on the sale and distribution of Coke."
| [deleted]
| anonymousab wrote:
| Tim Sweeney has made some statements about this, to try
| and walk a line where, while the situation is equally
| true about game consoles, they shouldn't count/shouldn't
| be forced to be open because their platforms are less
| innately profitable. That is, consoles are sold at a loss
| and have a lot of R&D costs, and so they have more rights
| to maintain an exclusionary platform than Apple.
|
| I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm
| pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid
| destroying a relationship with strategically critical
| partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile.
| Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
| gpm wrote:
| Let's assume your pessimistic case is exactly right, so
| what? He's allowed to sue one person who is breaking the
| law while not suing another one. He's allowed to eat the
| console slice of cake and complain to the courts that the
| apple slice of cake had the wrong color icing even if
| they both have the wrong color icing.
|
| He's also allowed to believe that there is a _stronger_
| case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the
| other people later if he wins the first suit
| convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going
| to happen.
| echelon wrote:
| iPhone is the only computer many Americans own.
|
| Software development and access to American consumers is no
| longer free and open.
| nodamage wrote:
| I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in
| every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1]
| and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly
| power.
|
| By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their
| antitrust suit. [3]
|
| [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-
| sh...
|
| [2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-
| share...
|
| [3]
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...
| oneplane wrote:
| Microsoft went from open options to package deals with no
| options. iOS (and vendored Android) started out with nothing,
| then added a store. There is no precedent on the platforms to
| point to an "it got worse" scenario.
|
| The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to
| pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast
| supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's
| infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your
| Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run
| your own software of choice either.
|
| While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of
| Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS,
| apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell
| like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'.
| There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable
| components. It's the same people that see computers that way.
| There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS +
| applications, it's "the computer".
| MereInterest wrote:
| > There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it
| got worse" scenario.
|
| While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS
| has made things worse for independent developers, and is
| laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized
| code.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116
| 8note wrote:
| It got worse by moving from laptops to phones? I used to use
| a laptop for the things I use my phone for now
|
| The benefit of phones over laptops is the mobility, and I see
| no reason why the open options should go away for that
| mobility
| oneplane wrote:
| From our perspective: yes. But legally and from the
| perspective or the mass-marketed users there really isn't
| much for them to think about or consider in terms of
| flexibility of application installation. (freedom is such a
| vague term to describe platform access - are you really
| free if you don't harvest your self-grown silicon
| chrystals, diffuse the chips yourself, write the firmware
| and OS yourself etc?)
|
| Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad
| came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for
| this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we
| could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal
| platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides)
| it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.
| coliveira wrote:
| I don't know if you remember the 90s, but at the time MS was
| the ONLY monopoly in personal computing. Intel was the other
| big force, but even they had competition on AMD. All other
| companies had not even a slim of hope of controlling the
| ecosystem like MS had. Now we have Apple, but you still can buy
| Google devices and do whatever you want outside their walled
| garden.
| 013a wrote:
| I think its really important the narrative stays clear
| concerning this: Its never been about users having choice
| (because users do have choice): Its about Developers not
| having a choice.
|
| Refusing to release an iOS app for your web
| application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much
| so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on
| the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
| judge2020 wrote:
| Of course the argument for this is "why are iOS users more
| inclined to purchase games and IAPs compared to Android
| users?". I'm legitimately curious about this, but my first
| guess is these two factors:
|
| A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more
| likely to have disposable income
|
| B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing
| stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
| coliveira wrote:
| I don't think this line of argument would fly, because
| developers have actually a choice in developing for
| Android. If they don't make as much money that is not
| Google or Apple's fault.
|
| What I think is an argument against Apple is that users
| want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to
| release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to
| relax their rules on the Appstore.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > I don't think this line of argument would fly, because
| developers have actually a choice in developing for
| Android.
|
| This is much like saying that having a monopoly on retail
| stores in California isn't a problem because producers
| can just sell their product in New York. Obviously that
| doesn't allow them to reach the same customers. They
| aren't alternatives to each other because you need both
| to reach your entire customer base. Compare to Walmart
| where if you don't sell through them, the exact same
| customers can easily walk across the street and buy your
| product at Target.
| coliveira wrote:
| That's not the same. People living in California cannot
| relocate to NY just to use a different store. iPhone
| users can in fact buy an Android phone to escape Apple. I
| think this line of argument is very weak and will never
| succeed in an antitrust trial.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > People living in California cannot relocate to NY just
| to use a different store. iPhone users can in fact buy an
| Android phone to escape Apple.
|
| In what sense can people in California not relocate to NY
| but people with iPhones can relocate to Android? In both
| cases moving is possible but the cost is far in excess of
| the cost of the typical product you'd buy in the store.
| 013a wrote:
| Ultimately, this isn't about App Store revenue. Yes, iOS
| generates far more IAP revenue than Android, in general.
| But, does this apply to Fortnite (maybe), xCloud (no),
| Hey (no), and the many other apps which have been Banned
| By Apple?
|
| I'm not talking about writing an application for iOS and
| Android, then selling it in the store. I do think that's
| a separate case.
|
| I'm talking about, as the best examples, xCloud and Hey.
| Web services which need to offer a mobile experience.
| Microsoft will be fine without Apple, but Hey faced
| legitimate business issues when Apple kicked them out.
| These companies are uninterested in the App Store
| Economy: They just want distribution.
| grumple wrote:
| How were they a monopoly if Apple had their own OS? As did
| many others?
|
| Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software.
| What Apple does is far worse imo, not just bundling software,
| but the control over the store/devices is nuts.
| coliveira wrote:
| Apple had less than 5% of the desktop market. At some point
| in the 90s Apple was going bankrupt quickly! MS had to step
| in and invest in Apple so that it wouldn't close down
| leaving MS as the only company in the personal computer OS
| market.
| scarface74 wrote:
| This is not what happened.
|
| Microsoft "invested" a token $250 million in Apple. The
| same quarter, Apple spent $100 million to buy
| PoweComputings Mac license. The $150 net did not save
| Apple. Apple lost far more money than that before it
| became profitable.
|
| What MS did was promise to continue releasing both Office
| and IE for the Mac.
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| Android is another phone platform with a larger market share.
| This is hardly a monopoly.
|
| Don't buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don't
| play by apples rules.
|
| I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
|
| I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used
| jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control
| panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I
| wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with
| an unofficial store.
|
| I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
|
| That's long term better for Apple.
| grumple wrote:
| Monopoly != anti-trust violator
| cnst wrote:
| You can install any other store on Android; you can enable
| installation from any source on Android; you don't even need
| to jailbreak to get this option on Android.
|
| Not possible on iOS.
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| But does that make it a monopoly?
| pier25 wrote:
| I have zero sympathy for Apple and how they manage iOS, but I do
| agree that banning Epic from the App Store is only logical.
|
| OTOH I think it is outrageous that breaking the rules from the
| iOS App Store now bans you from even having an Apple dev account.
| Unless I'm mistaken, without an Apple dev account you can't even
| sign a macOS app (different from notarization).
|
| I'm so glad I decided to not make any new projects for an Apple
| platform.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Is there any other example in the industry where you can not
| install and use an application without approval of the operating
| system creator and maintainer?
| RightTail wrote:
| Maybe Epic will have some breakthroughs in making Fortnite
| browser based.
|
| Not sure what would be needed to accomplish this.
|
| Maybe better WebGL?
|
| That would be amazing to help kids discover that the internet is
| much larger than apps.
| [deleted]
| robertoandred wrote:
| Good riddance. Epic is acting like spoiled brats.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| Huh? I don't play any Epic games... But just because they
| refuse to pay a 30% fee?
|
| Apple is only the distributor here. If they would charge a
| reasonable processing fee (4-5% like credit card companies do)
| nobody would have had - presumably - a problem.
|
| Unlike with most (all?) other platforms there is no way to
| install apps from any alternate sources.
|
| 30% is the modern version of way-laying. (IMHO at least)
| dang wrote:
| Please don't call names or post unsubstantive comments to HN.
| makecheck wrote:
| Of all the things about this, the fact that the Fortnite
| competitor PUBG is now being "featured" by Apple just ticks me
| off so much. Talk about being petty. Are there school-aged
| children running the App Store now (or the executive suite?).
|
| I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but
| _come on_. Being featured is _important_ , it's a _big deal_ and
| it can make a serious difference to any developer's income and
| notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the
| top of the list because they're in a bad mood really says
| something about Apple: I don't know, maybe that they're a bit
| isolated and immature about this whole thing?
| fsiefken wrote:
| It comes across as petty, certainly rubs me the wrong way to
| the point I'm done with Apple. But could it just be a
| coincidence of some sort and that we read some agency in that?
| threeseed wrote:
| Yes it's a coincidence since PUBG is about to release a major
| new update:
|
| https://www.pubgmobile.com/en/event/erangel
| pier25 wrote:
| This might be a desperate attempt at saying "hey but we do have
| PUBG!" but OTOH 80% of Fortnite players are on console vs PUBG
| has 40% of players on mobile [1].
|
| My point being that if PUBG is much more popular that Fortnite
| on iOS it would only be natural that Apple would want to
| promote it. I have no idea if that's the case though.
|
| [1] https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-
| royale-s...
| DivisionSol wrote:
| Not to whataboutism too hard, but Epic made an animated short
| mocking a past Apple advertisement. Further, tried to brew up a
| hashtag shame campaign. And finally ending with a holier than
| thou email over this whole ordeal.
|
| Apple is just promoting an update for a popular game, around
| the time it's going to be updated.
| modeless wrote:
| The App Store promotes PUBG constantly [1]. You're reading too
| much into this. It would be silly for Apple to promote PUBG to
| spite Epic because it's made with Unreal Engine.
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Aappstore%20pubgmobile&sr...
| makecheck wrote:
| Based on that thread, the last time they did it was in May,
| and the latest was yesterday. Furthermore, they're promoting
| a _sneak peek_ so they could have easily waited to promote
| something that isn't even here yet. The timing makes it
| pretty clear that they're just trying to beat up Epic, and
| it's an immature thing for a company to do.
| aero142 wrote:
| This kind of thing is handled at the CEO level at Epic because
| it is clearly part of a big strategy. This sounds to me like
| two very wealthy CEOs got really pissed off at each other and
| are going to all out war here. To me Apple's response only
| makes sense if you see if as keeping a promise to do literally
| everything possible to crush Epic in response. This seems very
| transactional to me, not strategic.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| The irony here is that PUBG is made with the Unreal Engine,
| which they're being _forced by a judge_ not to cut off from
| their platform, and Epic still gets 5% of all revenue from
| PUBG.
| TheNorthman wrote:
| They're not being forced to do anything, it's a temporary
| injunction, i.e. just a remedy.
|
| What's noteworthy here is that it's not a preliminary
| injunction, meaning that Apple might not even have had the
| chance to defend themselves in court yet.
| gpm wrote:
| > They're not being forced to do anything,
|
| It's literally a court order forcing them to not do things
| that they said they were going to do
|
| A new court order will be issued in the future, but for at
| least the next month this is the state of things.
|
| > meaning that Apple might not even have had the chance to
| defend themselves in court yet.
|
| The hearing was literally livestreamed on zoom and
| (illegally I might add) on youtube.
| sjy wrote:
| Apple had the chance to write and file this 34-page
| response to the application (which partially succeeded).
| https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/08/21/appleepic.pdf
| NathanKP wrote:
| To be honest Apple has to feature PUBG, because this fight with
| Epic is hugely damaging to their reputation with the next
| generation of kids who want devices.
|
| The message that young preteens and teens are hearing is
| "iPhones and iPads are wack because they don't have the cool
| game". They don't care about the cost of v-bucks and who gets
| what percentage of the money. They just care that they can't
| play a game but their friend at school who has an Android can.
|
| Apple has to feature PUBG because they have to show their
| customers that they still have cool games to play. Otherwise
| they run the risk of killing their iPhone gaming market just
| like they did the Mac gaming market. When you think desktop
| gaming its pretty likely that you think Windows first, because
| Mac has a really weak selection of games and many of the
| biggest titles are Windows only.
|
| That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid happening
| to iOS as well.
| john-shaffer wrote:
| Linux gaming is actually really solid now thanks to Lutris,
| DXVK, WINE, Steam, etc. Lutris especially makes it all work
| smoothly, and apparently it's Linux-only. Could Mac have
| similar gaming support if it were less hostile to OSS?
| austinheap wrote:
| Apple featured PUBG numerous times before this. Conspiracy
| theories not needed.
| ralfn wrote:
| >That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid
| happening to iOS as well.
|
| It took a court order to not cut off Epic's developer
| liscence, which affects many other game vendors too.
|
| That doesn't sound desparate. That sounds balsy and arrogant,
| and considering the attitude of Epic somewhat called for.
| It's almost like the gaming market on iOS is a only small
| percentage of all the money Apple makes. We are talking about
| a lot of money that Epic looses to them, but the same is not
| true in reverse.
|
| Apple will stick to its guns even if the whole gaming
| industry would boycot them. They don't seem to care, and i
| can understand why they don't. Mobile games is a very
| profitable market, but one that makes money irregardless of
| quality. Angry Birds will do for Apple. The assumption that
| exclusive titles are platform drivers for mobile phones is
| false.
| glofish wrote:
| Epic had a golden goose here that printed money for them.
|
| Now they are shooting the goose because they want a bigger share
| of the egg.
|
| The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to
| speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that
| people don't fully understand this yet. Instead of riding the
| wave they are getting off of it.
|
| Can people sell the goods that they buy from Epic? What will
| happen to these goods ten year from now?
| vernie wrote:
| Cya bish
| jacquesm wrote:
| Remember this whenever you hear someone say their company is too
| big to fail when dealing with the likes of Apple, Microsoft,
| Google and others: no company is too big to fail.
| oneplane wrote:
| Just as important: they are companies, not people. We (or
| perhaps: some of us) fall for the idea to personify the
| companies or brands that we use(d) because that is what some of
| the products might mean to use while we use them. But it's
| still products and companies, and our interaction is often
| limited to legal, retail and marketing.
| 8note wrote:
| Isn't this provably not true?
|
| When the government decides a business is too big to fail,
| it'll ensure that the company keeps running. Just look at 2008
| jacquesm wrote:
| I thought I wrote 'Apple, Google, Microsoft'. The government
| is a different class of entity altogether and the logical
| exception to that rule.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| I don't think "too big to fail" is a phrase used outside
| the context of government bailouts. The public is acutely
| aware of the life and death of major companies and brands,
| see GE or Ford nostalgia.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I've heard it used on more than one occasion by large eco
| system players, just like in this case.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| I'm sure you can find some exceptional abuse of
| vernacular out there, but the term was coined for
| something else and in this thread you are alone in using
| it this way...
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Loving it
| racl101 wrote:
| Epic Games and Facebook will start a cabal of companies who hate
| Apple soon.
| jpambrun wrote:
| IMO, Apple is acting like a bully. It's using its position of
| power to coerce other into giving up a substantial amount of
| revenue for very little effort.
|
| If they want to keep this monopoly, they should make their cost
| transparent and apply a reasonable markup. Otherwise they should
| be forced to allow competing stores. Anything else is ripe for
| abuse, as we can plainly see now.
| scarface74 wrote:
| And how much "effort" is it in selling virtual goods with zero
| marginal costs?
| jpambrun wrote:
| I am not following. Are you saying apps development is free?
| That the only cost is delivering the bytes?
| scarface74 wrote:
| I'm saying that selling costumes and Carlton dances at zero
| marginal cost and loot boxes is not the hill to die on. If
| every game that had micro transactions for consumables
| disappeared tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost.
| jpambrun wrote:
| Epic is just an example, and a very marginal one at that.
| I assume most app dev could really use fairer pricing
| from Apple.
| librish wrote:
| Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they
| think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced
| to loosen some of their restrictions?
|
| It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the
| AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs
| even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do
| choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as
| a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the
| current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've
| been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but
| at least now there's the possibility of competition.
| WiseWeasel wrote:
| I'm on weasel's side, but I can understand Apple wanting to
| keep iOS "trusted" by its users by restricting unapproved
| software coded to their current native app API layer. What I
| can't understand is the harm for end users in software using
| 3rd party payment processing without giving Apple a cut. That
| restriction encourages a worse experience for users who now
| have to go to the vendor's website to complete a purchase they
| could be making in-app. Something went wrong when native apps
| have less capabilities than web.
| eknkc wrote:
| They are not acting rational in these kind of discussions.
|
| Most Apple users are deeply locked into the ecosystem. I guess
| it is sunk cost fallacy, now even though the cracks are clearly
| showing they don't want to see Apple fail in any way. You'll
| see people rationalize anything Apple does without blinking.
|
| And it makes sense too. If I use a mac, iphone, apple watch,
| airpods, have all my photos on iCloud etc I would not want
| Apple to face any hurdles.
| zupa-hu wrote:
| > Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they
| think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're
| forced to loosen some of their restrictions?
|
| I don't see why this is relevant. Apple runs a business. If you
| force it to walk away from income sources, you could just as
| well force any other company to do the same. So even if
| consumers would win, how would it justify the enforcement?
|
| I win if I get your car. Now what?
|
| (I'm on neither side.)
| notfried wrote:
| I don't need apps on my iPhone to do 100% of all things that
| apps can do. I am fine with some restrictions, so long as
| there's enough reliability, consistency, privacy and security.
|
| If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make
| their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through
| these stores:
|
| 1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app
| that has no ad or data collection restrictions. 2. Epic will
| want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app
| purchases. 3. Google will want a store that allows them to
| track your location in the background regardless of your
| consent. 4. The New York Times will want a store where you
| cannot find a way to cancel your subscription.
|
| And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and
| end up with a poor user experience.
|
| And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for
| me.
|
| I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on
| apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to
| recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.
| Touche wrote:
| IANAL and I cannot judge the legal merits of this case.
|
| I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a
| compelling justification for their practices.
|
| A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30%
| as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable
| until you realize that Epic is _not_ allowed to recoup its own
| costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product
| cost by 30%.
|
| Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the
| customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a
| %. That makes little sense.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| > Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher
| App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%
|
| What are you talking about? Epic can price their product
| however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more
| on iOS than on any other platform?
| Touche wrote:
| Did they change this? They used to disallow charging more on
| iOS.
| SXX wrote:
| They have exceptions for few kind of products and this is
| exactly where Apple policy become some controversial. Since
| they also allow video streaming, but banned game streaming
| apps.
| SXX wrote:
| > What are you talking about? Epic can price their product
| however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs
| more on iOS than on any other platform?
|
| As far as I understand this is something Google was
| specifically allowed to do because their nature as streaming
| service. E.g most of companies are not allowed to sell
| subscription or app options for 30% extra on iOS and make it
| possible to pay for them on their own website for normal
| price.
| bitwize wrote:
| Refuse to play by the rules, get banned.
| [deleted]
| failuser wrote:
| Not all rules are legal. Apple can't demand your firstborn as
| collateral. They have enough market share in the US to be under
| scrutiny.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-28 23:00 UTC)