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

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#91

Post by Despegar » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

zb1plus wrote: post #53

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 abou…

>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.

All of those things are true today.

The question was: >Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?

And the answer to that is: obviously it should be, if you care about competition and innovation. The only people that disagree with this are the tech people who have had problems with Apple's business on ideological grounds for decades (people like Richard Stallman and saurik).

But outside that one particularly small constituency, there's no good public policy reason to actually make it illegal, and plenty of reasons not to.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#92

Post by pier25 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

Essentially, it's a win-win for Epic.

If they win the lawsuit they will (probably) be able to have more control over how they want to distribute their iOS apps.

If they lose, they won't have to deal with iOS anymore. Free players cost money too, and it's possible iOS is not so interesting to Epic with the %30 Apple cut.

Also, since their business model is based on microtransactions, most of their revenue must come from whales. These are committed players who will most likely go get their Fornite fix somewhere else. Specially if Apple wins. Most gamers will always side with Epic here.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#93

Post by izacus » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

spanhandler wrote: post #44

baby wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Who?

Raises hand . I don't wanna have to worry about stupid computer shit when I'm just trying to use my iPad or iPhone as a tool to accomplish something else. Drawing, playing music, reading, writing, edutainment for the kids, very occasionally a game. Maybe the odd SSH session. If I decide I want some software to help me with any of those things I just want it to be in the App Store, and I just want it to use the App St…

Nothing what you say has absolutely ANYTHING to do with you being locked out from ever running your own software on Apple devices.

This is a completely false argument you're putting up - you can HAVE all of those protections while STILL having the option of replacing protected software with less safe one.

Please stop peddling this false argument.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#94

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #35

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…

actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a t…

> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown).

So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are. Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone?

> I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee.

You're the one making the claim - you have to prove why it's wrong to charge a percentage of revenue first.

The Internet Explorer argument just doesn't apply. They had market dominance - Apple does not.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#95

Post by sammorrowdrums » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #15

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…

It seems worth considering startups and entrenched near-monopoly situations differently. Competition is hard to bring back in the latter, and certainly consumers might well benefit from the right interventions. It doesn't mean a purist law to prohibit proprietary closed devices is necessary.

And I'd argue with your example of Facebook that they should at minimum be compelled to enable universal linking so that other app vendors can intercept outbound links directly, and users can choose their web browser etc.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#96

Post by kentonv » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #23

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.

So they should take 5% of regular app purchases, too. Problem solved.

Would hardly even create a dent in Apple's revenue and they apparently don't know what to do with the money anyway except put it in a giant pile, so no loss for society.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#97

Post by rowanG077 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #15

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…

Hardware is a physical product you buy. You don't buy Amazon or Facebook. They are a service not a product. The meaningful distinction is that you should OWN the hardware you buy and thus it shouldn't be limited by the manufacturer except for things that are vital for product function.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#98

Post by justwalt » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

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?

To be fair, this is a somewhat common sentiment that I’ve seen on HN. Similar is the “non tech oriented parent” point, where you don’t have to worry about your parents phone getting a virus.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#99

Post by Someone » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #35

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…

actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a t…

“consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut”

I think it will be hard to defend that argument in court, given the historical development of prices for apps.

Also, Apple will likely argue that prices could go down because they provide developers a huge market relatively cheaply, so that they can make up Apple’s cut with increased number of sales.

I also think one could argue Apple is your partner when you publish on the App Store (evil partner, maybe, but developers sign a contract with them)

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#100

Post by AshamedCaptain » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

asutekku wrote: post #37

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'm really happy with my closed hardware as the tightly controlled environment promises the customer that the software run in it will be high quality and on some level will be vetted before allowed to the platform. This also attracts other developers to create high-quality software, as those good enough will be highlighted by the platform owner, which in turn means increased sales. And I really can't say the same abo…

> I'm really happy with my closed hardware as the tightly controlled environment promises the customer that the software run in it will be high quality and on some level will be vetted before allowed to the platform. This also attracts other developers to create high-quality software,

I am not sure whether this is sarcasm or not.

Since it seems like it is not, let me say that most closed platforms are absolutely garbage. Let us not think only of the iPhones and the Androids of the world, and instead focus on everything else. Think industrial control. Even the cinema stuff mentioned by the GP I'm sure contains software of the worst quality.