Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#61

Post by zaksoup » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #47

EricE wrote: post #3

If they feel so strongly about it let Epic open a store inside the Xbox. What? Didn’t think so.

Yes. If iPhone as appliance doesn’t stick, Xbox as appliance shouldn’t either. Both are vertically integrated and curated experiences on digital rights managed “consoles”. Epic may have thrown Unreal Engine under the bus, but Microsoft needs the law to recognize it and Apple compete as fully integrated experiences not unbundled hardware separate from app stores. That said, a lot of games money is going to iOS that us…

I'm not sure that Microsoft sees it that way. The direction they're going with XCloud and XBox Game Pass seems to me that they're interested in strongly diversifying on software as a service while selling XBox hardware as commodity priced entrypoints into their software ecosystem. The only reason XCloud isn't launching on iOS is because Apple denied it, not for Microsoft's lack of trying.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#62

Post by smileybarry » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 8:48 PM UTC

misnome wrote: post #50

I still don't understand what "Denying access to the SDK" is supposed to mean. Aren't the iOS and Mac development tools free to download without a developer account? Isn't publishing on the app stores the only thing that not having an active corporate account prevents? Apple haven't said that they'll block anyone using Unreal Engine, right? I thought this was just about signing keys, in which case other people using…

They're free to download, but IIRC you're still abiding by their EULA. Apple are threatening to revoke Epic's EULA license. If that happens, Epic would be using the SDK "illegally". (This is all speculation, IANAL, feel free to correct me if you have a better legal understanding of this)

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#63

Post by anoncake » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #55

anoncake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people even feel the need to defend consoles? The fact consoles are also artificially restricted doesn't mean it's okay for the Iphone to be, it means they need to be fixed as well.

My take on it is that while both are bad, the iOS situation is far worse. Almost no one would replace a desktop or laptop with an xbox while many people have done just that with an iPhone.

I do agree that the iOS situation is far more important.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#64

Post by danielscrubs » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

dybber wrote: post #23

danielscrubs wrote: post #21

Apple succeeded in what Google has failed with, namely to put value on quality apps. A few small missteps and it will become like Android or Windows Phone.

Quality and crap can’t coexist? They should only be vetting the privacy and security of apps, and let users decide what is crap.

It can’t because marketing lies and flooding the market with semi functional apps is the end result. The app market is spread out economically but neither users (has to buy a lot of apps to try them out, and because it’s a risk will lower the amount willing to pay) nor developers becomes happy (no clear path through the bad apps).

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#65

Post by myhf » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 11:21 PM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #56

quelsolaar wrote: post #11

I'm extremely surprised that Apple would engage in something that could in court be perceived as retaliatory against someone who is filing a complaint regarding anti competitive behavior. The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market. By denying Epic access in the game engine market, Apple is trying to get Epic to fold in the game distribution market…

> The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market. Your definition is missing a key point, which is you have to possess sufficient market power in the primary market in order to use to gain an advantage. If you lack market power, it doesn't matter what you do because you lack the ability to coerce consumers. As the Supreme Court put it: If one of a doz…

>Do you really think you have a better grasp of antitrust law than their legal team?

Obviously Apple's legal team does not understand antitrust law. It is impossible to get someone to understand something, when their salary depends upon not understanding it.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#66

Post by lucifirius » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 1:55 AM UTC

myhf wrote: post #65

nodamage wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market. Your definition is missing a key point, which is you have to possess sufficient market power in the primary market in order to use to gain an advantage. If you lack market power, it doesn't matter what you do because you lack the ability to coerce consumers. As the Supreme Court put it: If one of a doz…

>Do you really think you have a better grasp of antitrust law than their legal team? Obviously Apple's legal team does not understand antitrust law. It is impossible to get someone to understand something, when their salary depends upon not understanding it.

So no, you don't have a better grasp of antitrust law than the Apple legal team. If they thought they were in the wrong they wouldn't do any of this.

It's such a stupid trope in any case.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#67

Post by jbverschoor » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 6:06 AM UTC

mikro wrote: post #48

jbverschoor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's 100% at Epic's fault. First of all, they willingly put their customers at risk. Second of all, they could've put the engine business in a different entity, keeping it safe from their games business

They did put the engine business into a separate entity, a Swiss company called Epic Games International S.à r.l. Apple is threatening to cut off access for both entities. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-pi-tro-08-23-2020-8198711...

I just read so. In that case, that should be all safe

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#68

Post by sixothree » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #46

sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a different argument?

What argument is that? If the problem is Apple doesn't allow you to sell apps without going through their approval process, Microsoft does the same. If the problem is Apple doesn't allow you to sell apps without collecting a commission on each sale, Microsoft does the same.

I find shifting arguments fairly repulsive. I'm sorry if that offends you.

8note made the point that you could buy games from other stores. It's a narrow point. Why would you reply to that person (in particular) about a digital protection issue that has been prevalent in consoles since the NES introduced it in 1983? Why not start your own thread about that issue?

Do you expect him to support a point he did not make? Because it sounds like you are assuming his point of view on digital protection would be different than yours.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#69

Post by sixothree » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

wittyreference wrote: post #59

sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a different argument?

Is it? You have to pay a Microsoft tax to sell anything that functions on the Microsoft device. Is it different because the fee is structured somewhat differently?

Please see my response to nodamage.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#70

Post by nodamage » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

sixothree wrote: post #68

nodamage wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What argument is that? If the problem is Apple doesn't allow you to sell apps without going through their approval process, Microsoft does the same. If the problem is Apple doesn't allow you to sell apps without collecting a commission on each sale, Microsoft does the same.

I find shifting arguments fairly repulsive. I'm sorry if that offends you. 8note made the point that you could buy games from other stores. It's a narrow point. Why would you reply to that person (in particular) about a digital protection issue that has been prevalent in consoles since the NES introduced it in 1983? Why not start your own thread about that issue? Do you expect him to support a point he did not make?…

I think you've misunderstood the point. Do you think if Apple permitted apps to be physically sold in stores, but still took their 30% and required apps to be approved, that everyone would be happy?