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

51–60 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#51

Post by layoutIfNeeded »

baby wrote: post #26
noncoml wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Really? Who?

Me.

I buy Apple products not because it's a walled garden per se, but because it's Apple's walled garden. Apple has been the only vendor to provide me with a consistently top-quality user experience, so I trust them to make decisions that benefit me. I don't have the same trust relationship with other software and hardware vendors, so their walled gardens I would protest against.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#52

Post by wmf »

lilyball wrote: post #34
wmf wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly this. If IAP was a different cut, all apps would go "free" overnight and require an IAP purchase to unlock most of the app. Apple could try something like giving "consumable" IAP a different cut, but I'm sure devs would still try to game that too (e.g. having a consumable that unlocks the app for a set amount of time, rather than a permanent unlock).

BTW if Apple is protecting customers so much they should ban consumable IAPs because they're being used to drain money from people via addiction.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#53

Post by zb1plus »

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…

Nope. If a person "owns" a piece of hardware, it should be legal to jailbreak it without any consequences (except perhaps lack of support for 3rd party software) and companies that sell products that build off of jailbroken products should be 100% legal. Edge case products like Prima Cinema can simply lease the hardware with restrictions on how can be used under the terms of the lease. If Apple feels so strongly about locking down their platform, they can adjust their business model and lease their hardware to customers. However, companies should not be able to legally "sell" products that transfer ownership if they are going to include "strings" restricting the usage of the product.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#55

Post by bluedevil2k »

cmiller1 wrote: post #16
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.

They weren't surprised at all by the lawsuit. They wanted a lawsuit. The only person who could change the TOS was a judge and Epic could only sue if Apple enforced the TOS on them.

Plus, if you don't think Epic had already talked to lawyers and lobbyists in Washington DC and already been given a heads-up that they might win, then you don't know business that well.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#56

Post by braythwayt »

baby wrote: post #40
braythwayt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my sole reason, but since you asked, here I am. I give my children iPhones. I like having certain family controls over what they use, and further controls over what appears in the app store to begin with. I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly. I spend all day thinking about computers, I don't want to also be my own IT…

Should a parent really get their children iPhones?

If you are a parent, you decide for yourself.

I question the validity of presuming this question has a correct answer for all parents under all circumstances.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#57

Post by partiallypro »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #11

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 exceptio…

At least in terms of their banning xCloud, they recently filed a patent to make their own cloud gaming service. I would definitely say that sounds anti-competitive to ban competitors that are ahead of you from your store, so you have time to make your own.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#58

Post by tuscen »

braythwayt wrote: post #32
baby wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Who?

Not my sole reason, but since you asked, here I am. I give my children iPhones. I like having certain family controls over what they use, and further controls over what appears in the app store to begin with. I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly. I spend all day thinking about computers, I don't want to also be my own IT…

Why this can’t be a part of parental control function where you can restrict certain function on devices you control?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#59

Post by blintz »

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…

I think that the right legal and political concept to accomplish essentially the same goal is the “right to repair”. This is a concept that lots of people (outside of technology) have an immediate connection to, and the downsides of not having it are more clear (waste, less competition, bricking when companies go out of business).

From a regulatory standpoint, it seems easier than attempting to hand ‘closed’ hardware - less line drawing on what counts as firmware and more focus on what consumers need to properly use and maintain a device over a long period of time.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#60

Post by [deleted] »

baby wrote: post #40
braythwayt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my sole reason, but since you asked, here I am. I give my children iPhones. I like having certain family controls over what they use, and further controls over what appears in the app store to begin with. I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly. I spend all day thinking about computers, I don't want to also be my own IT…

Should a parent really get their children iPhones?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN