Live data from Hacker News

Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

courtlistener.com

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#81

This seems like the predictable outcome. Epic knew Fortnite would get banned when they started this; Apple is innocent until proven guilty, so no court will force Apple to reinstate Fortnite unless Epic wins its antitrust suit. But similarly, Apple's subsequent, second threat to ban Epic from doing other lines of business via macOS tools (e.g. Unreal Engine development) seemed excessive compared to other app bans, an…

Banning the unreal dev account makes sense when you take it as setting/following precedent of removing access to the legal entity responsible for the breach of contract? It also follows that Apple could claim that Epic used this unreal dev tooling to break the contract and thus the tooling is "illegal" and subsequently must bear the consequences as well. I don't think there's anything overtly malicious to the unreal…

The Unreal account was a separate dev account held by a different legal entity: "Epic Games, Inc." (Fortnite) vs "Epic Games International, S.a.r.l." (Unreal). (Props to @scq who noticed this elsewhere in the discussion.)

It's somewhat unusual for corporate lawyering to go big like this against a well-funded opponent. Apple didn't actually have the legal standing to do it — as evidenced by the court issuing the emergency injunction so quickly — and now there's precedent on the books that this kind of threat won't be enforceable against others. Usually, sadly, corporate lawyering tactics are to go nuclear against someone who can't afford to fight you, and tread more carefully when someone can — lest the court take away your nuclear weapons when the big player lawyers back.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#82
post #70
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iOS is a major cost to develop that's given away for free How is it given for free, you pay for it when you buy the phone.

You're paying for the phone, there is no cost nor can you pay for iOS. The current and all future versions is & always has been free.

It's nonsensical to take a product that can't be purchased in pieces and separate the pieces to call one half free. iOS has always been included but it will never be free.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#83

This seems like the predictable outcome. Epic knew Fortnite would get banned when they started this; Apple is innocent until proven guilty, so no court will force Apple to reinstate Fortnite unless Epic wins its antitrust suit. But similarly, Apple's subsequent, second threat to ban Epic from doing other lines of business via macOS tools (e.g. Unreal Engine development) seemed excessive compared to other app bans, an…

I agree that seemed to be the predictable outcome. But then I cannot understand what was Apple trying to do. What is their strategy here, why be so agressive toward Epic's Unreal Engine? It feels as if they wanted to be proven wrong, but I don't understand why they would do this. If someone has some insights to share, I would be interested.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#84
post #70
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iOS is a major cost to develop that's given away for free How is it given for free, you pay for it when you buy the phone.

You're paying for the phone, there is no cost nor can you pay for iOS. The current and all future versions is & always has been free.

Can I just buy the hardware at a cheaper price without the OS, if not then its not free, its part of the total cost.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#85
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple profits handsomely from the iOS ecosystem every time someone buys an iPhone to access it, or buys a Mac because Apple won't allow building iOS apps without one, or pays the annual developer program fee. They don't need to triple or quadruple dip to be the most valuable publicly traded company in the world.

iOS is a major cost to develop that's given away for free, continually invested in, advanced, developed & updated. Apple is allowed to have more than one business model on the platform they built, which was their primary focus that reshaped the company at a great opportunity cost to their other businesses. Ultimately the Company bet paid off & became successful against a number of incumbents who lost fortunes trying…

> iOS is a major cost to develop that's given away for free

Are you sure it's free? The only way to buy ios, is to buy a device running it. It would seem reasonable that part of the premium you pay for eg an iPad is equivalent to an oem license for ios?

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#86
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iOS is a major cost to develop that's given away for free How is it given for free, you pay for it when you buy the phone.

You dont just get the current OS that's on the phone, but also the upcoming ones for the next 5-6 years[0] for free. A phone bought in 2015 still gets updates. [0] https://i.imgur.com/eS3ifSC.jpg

By that rationale, windows 10 is free too.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#87
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iOS is a major cost to develop that's given away for free How is it given for free, you pay for it when you buy the phone.

You dont just get the current OS that's on the phone, but also the upcoming ones for the next 5-6 years[0] for free. A phone bought in 2015 still gets updates. [0] https://i.imgur.com/eS3ifSC.jpg

All those "free" upgrades are part of the phone when you buy it.

You cannot buy just the hardware without the OS at cheaper cost because its a combined hardware/OS cost.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#88
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being a walled garden is the only way I’m willing to trust it for accessing all my account recovery emails, my 2FA SMSes, my bank details, and the sensor package that can listen to everything I do while GPS tracking me and monitoring my heart rate and gaze if I happen to be holding it where I can see the screen. Of course, that doesn’t mean I like being stuck with an American cultural hegemony that says sexual con…

The walled garden is not what protects your email, 2FA SMSes or bank details. The OS sandboxing and permissions system do that. The two are often conflated, but the two concerns are orthogonal really. Heck, you could easily imagine a system where software distributed outside the app store can only access a subset of perms if security is such a concern, and that'd still be less anti-competitive

Heck, you could easily imagine a system where software distributed outside the app store can only access a subset of perms if security is such a concern, and that'd still be less anti-competitive

I think this system is called the world wide web.

Apple would have a much stronger case if mobile safari were a first class PWA platform, instead of being almost useless for PWA's. Then the choice would be: make a PWA and live in the browser sandbox, or go through approval and be on the app store.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this one: "with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, [...] the contracts related to those applications were not breached. Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed [...] Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple. Apple's behavior here was not reasonable and defi…

Epic could have used the same developer account for both Unreal Engine and Fornite development knowing full well that Apple would have to either allow both or ban both. They had ads and lawsuits ready when they pulled the trigger on this chain of events so it wouldn't surprise me if they made sure that the Unreal Engine issue was included.

I don't think Epic use the same account on purpose -- I mean, why pay x2 the fees?

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#90
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iOS is a major cost to develop that's given away for free How is it given for free, you pay for it when you buy the phone.

You dont just get the current OS that's on the phone, but also the upcoming ones for the next 5-6 years[0] for free. A phone bought in 2015 still gets updates. [0] https://i.imgur.com/eS3ifSC.jpg

And if my iPhone gets updates in 2025, it doesn't change the fact that I paid 1200 euro for it. How much is the raw manufacturing cost of the 11 Pro (256 GB)?

Also, if the App Store revenue is for iOS development, does that mean that people who buy an iPhone and never pay for an app or an IAP are a net loss to Apple?

Post reply on HN