Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple, Epic, and the App Store

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#11

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

A pretty well-thought out article, given the inflammatory nature of the subject matter.

I think Apple is right on the line. But I don't see a good argument as to what their doing is being anti-competitive. ~2 million apps are on the app store. Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair. And the rules of engagement are generally applied equally to everyone - the exceptions are noted by the guidelines.

What would make it fair? Lowering the fee? If that were the case, then the problem isn't anti-competitive behavior. If it's the rules, what would fair rules look like that don't harm the end user or the product?

What actual harm is Apple inflicting on the market by their behavior? Developers make less money? That isn't good enough.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#12

Post by oppositelock »

jasode wrote: post #6

In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell? Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal? To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln... In m…

What does banning closed hardware accomplish? It won't result in equivalent open hardware, except at the margin where it doesn't matter.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#14

Post by orliesaurus »

Okay this is going to sound stupid but maybe someone else feels like me about it: I don't understand why Apple has to take such a big chunk from transactions of in-app purchases? Similarly Google. Why 30%? Why not 5%? That feels like it would be more honest.

Is it just because "they can"?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#15

Post by ericmay »

jasode wrote: post #6

In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell? Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal? To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln... In m…

> Should closed hardware even be legal to sell?

I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product.

If it's truly a bad business practice, it'll lose out in the end. Besides that I actually love the closed system of the iPhone + App Store, we can't just go around banning things anytime we think we might not like them. Every time I see this story it just annoys me. I want the iPhone and App Store to be a closed system. Opening it up is the bad idea here.

Philosophically, amazon.com and Facebook are closed systems too. As is Wal-Mart and UPS. I'm not sure why we're only focused on hardware systems here, what's the meaningful distinction?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#16

Post by cmiller1 »

maxdo wrote: post #8

This particular company decided to grow financially by cutting apple from a revenue stream. Apple invested billions of dollars in rnd, PR , legal protection, security, servers etc... Behemoth like Epic decided to ignore that, at the same time still using apple services and platforms. Such a simple case to me. The funny part is I never heard from small company that gain traction from apple store that it's bad. It's a…

And they didn't even start with the lawsuit, they just broke the terms of service explicitly and then surprise pikachu faced when Apple slapped them down.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#17

Post by wmf »

jasode wrote: post #6

In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell? Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal? To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln... In m…

There's nothing stopping you from putting a Blu-ray player in your rack next to the Prima box and the cost is trivial.

There's a common-sense argument that a person is only going to have one phone, one phone carrier, one ISP, etc. and thus those companies shouldn't hold their customers hostage. Turning that into a legal principle is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#18

Post by macintux »

kanobo wrote: post #7
debacle wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should not shame and criticize Apple for being anticompetitive, you should lament that the US is not a fair playing field when it comes to anti-trust investigations. Apple is under no obligation to behave fairly. Many (not me) would argue the opposite.

That's why I try to reflect on my feelings when I can because they aren't rational. I have to remind myself it's the fiduciary duty of companies to take legal advantage of any opportunity the law gives it.

I’m not confident that’s an accurate description. Companies are certainly beholden to their shareholders, but e.g. there’s no legal requirement to maximize profits.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#19

Post by save_ferris »

kanobo wrote: post #2

"This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not." I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics…

The problem is that we’re terrible at assessing the morality of companies. We tend not to care about what startups do, even though the “doing whatever it takes” mentality sometimes leads to deeply concerning behavior (i.e. Instacart/door dash tipping dark patterns, Zoom security practices, online advertising startups generally, etc.)

Part of it is that business models are getting increasingly complex, and it’s getting harder for laypeople to really grok how a particular company makes money, especially when consumer data is involved.

The public tolerates quite a bit of unethical behavior by companies if they determine the value of the product to be worth it (i.e. Facebook). And some entrepreneurs see these examples and think that there are no consequences. There really is no concrete mechanism to assess morality in companies. Marketing gets to dictate most of that.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#20

Post by jgon »

kanobo wrote: post #2

"This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not." I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics…

I think that's ok though. I think that we handicap ourselves by trying to find universalizing systems and rules, and then throwing our hands up when we can't do so. I also think that this sort of thing is tacitly encouraged by incumbents because usually giving up benefits them.

Size matters. If a child hits you, you scold them and tell them not to do it, but you're likely no worse for wear. If an adult hits you, they could kill you, we call it assault and it has legal consequences.

The contradiction you feel is like saying "well I don't think we should punish children the same way we punish adults, so maybe we shouldn't punish anyone?". I know that when I put it into this type of metaphor it seems obvious, I'm not trying to be insulting, merely that when you change the context we suddenly see that it does makes sense to weigh different situations with different consequences differently.

Trying to find a common legal framework to cover a 2 person ramen startup and the continent spanning wealth and power of Jeff Bezos and Amazon, or Tim Cook and Apple is something that seems fraught, and the consequences for the actions that each group takes are vastly different. I think we shouldn't be afraid to judge or regulate them differently as well.

Post reply on HN