Apple, Epic, and the App Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#21

Post by noncoml » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

Some customers buy into the Apple ecosystem because of its walled garden. Not despite of it.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#22

Post by kanobo » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

macintux wrote: post #18

kanobo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thanks for the link! Looks like I was holding on to an assumption I never actually verified.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#23

Post by wmf » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

orliesaurus wrote: post #14

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"?

Partly because they can but also to prevent developers from gaming the system. Imagine a free app with an IAP to unlock features but Apple only takes 5% from the IAP.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#24

Post by Despegar » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

>That means, for example, allowing purchases via webviews, particularly for products and experiences that are not zero marginal costs. Sure, that could mean less App Store revenue in the short run, but Apple would be well-served having to build more and better products to win developers over. At the end of the day, squeezing businesses that can stomach the cost of Apple development, both in terms of implementing in-app purchase and that 30%, by definition has less ultimate upside than growing the pie for everyone.

Apple shouldn't have to enable you to undermine their business with their own property. And no court would ever require them to.

The fact is that Apple hasn't changed the terms. It's been the same since the App Store began (technically it's become more generous to developers with the reduction in the fee for subscriptions after the first year). Meanwhile the iPhone installed base is magnitudes larger than it was in 2008, making it more lucrative for developers than ever. Apple would be well within their right to raise the fee, but the fee has only ever gone down.

That's addressing the moral argument of their business model. Legally, Epic has no case.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#25

Post by macintux » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

kanobo wrote: post #22

macintux wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thanks for the link! Looks like I was holding on to an assumption I never actually verified.

It’s a common assumption.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#26

Post by baby » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

noncoml wrote: post #21

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…

Some customers buy into the Apple ecosystem because of its walled garden. Not despite of it.

Really? Who?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#27

Post by cschneid » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

The Hey saga emphasized that Apple has multiple products interacting in a single app store.

* Screened apps - Apple only lets "safe" apps into the store. * Discoverability - Apple in theory lets users find apps that they didn't know about before. Customer Acquisition * Payments - Apple makes it easy to accept payments, for their 30% fee.

One or all of those are useful and great. Where I have an issue is when they use one (the required screened apps aspect) for force you into the others.

Hey wanted an app on the store, as an extension to their primarily web based experience. But they couldn't purchase just the rubber-stamp that says they're not malware and the app store hosting. They were being forced to buy into all 3.

That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and decisions were focused on forcing them to.

If Apple had a yearly fee of $1000 (arbitrary number, maybe pay per download or device or whatever), for an app to simply be reviewed & hosted, that would be reasonable. They provide a service, businesses can opt into that. But they're taking their core value prop of "closed app store helps customers" and forcing their way onto "and now you have to pay us a portion of revenue".

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#28

Post by baby » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

A lot of things are totally fine until they get too large (cancer).

A lot of the time, the only rule for healthy ecosystem is that players don’t get too big. Players getting too big means monopoly, cartel, etc.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#29

Post by save_ferris » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

jtokoph wrote: post #5

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…

Uber is the prime example of this. They broke many laws and regulations in order to provide a better product/user experience without much punishment to get to where they are today. If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.

> If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.

Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being true. I’d be willing to bet they’re still breaking laws and ordinances today and we’re just not aware of it.

Part of it is the news cycle today, we’d never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires.

Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they’re not going to change.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#30

Post by mLuby » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

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…

Would that apply to anything electrical, or with integrated circuits, or with a port or antenna, or connected to the Internet? Is there an exception for ROM? What about device-specific IDs or keys?

And I wonder what test the courts would accept (which the manufacturers would then build to): that the device can run arbitrary code? That each feature of the device is easily accessible via FOSS library or API? That access to each feature in the device could theoretically be reverse-engineered by a sufficiently motivated expert?

Interesting thought experiment.