Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

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

#91

Post by madeofpalk »

dgellow wrote: post #83
reissbaker wrote: post #18

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.

I don't believe they were specifically targeting Unreal Engine, it just got caught in the cross fire and Apple didn't really care.

Apple wanted to terminate all the dev accounts belonging to Epic which "just to happens" to include Unreal.

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

#92

Post by madeofpalk »

high_density wrote: post #89
threeseed wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

well, the fee's are only like $99/year. a rounding error, really.

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

#93

Post by madeofpalk »

Joeri wrote: post #88
roblabla wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

I really don't think so. there are many classes of applications that just do not work on the web platform.

A podcast player or music and video streaming app, or a game like fortnite, are not going to work as web sites.

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

#94

Post by mythz »

sumedh wrote: post #84
mythz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's nonsensical, if you could buy the hardware cheaper or iOS separate then you would be paying for iOS, you can't, Apple doesn't sell iOS, it gives it away. The cost for new iOS versions is irrelevant to the cost of hardware it's running on, it's free for all their devices for as long as they meet the hardware requirements for running new versions.

You could buy an iPhone and put a jail break OS on it, you're still paying the full amount for the device.

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

#95

Post by Hamuko »

mythz wrote: post #94
sumedh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's nonsensical, if you could buy the hardware cheaper or iOS separate then you would be paying for iOS, you can't, Apple doesn't sell iOS, it gives it away. The cost for new iOS versions is irrelevant to the cost of hardware it's running on, it's free for all their devices for as long as they meet the hardware requirements for running new versions. You could buy an iPhone and put a jail break OS on it, you're sti…

>You could buy an iPhone and put a jail break OS on it, you're still paying the full amount for the device.

If I buy a new TV and throw the remote in the trash, the remote was not part of the cost of the TV?

Also, "jail break OS"? Isn't that just iOS?

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

#96

Post by dgellow »

madeofpalk wrote: post #91
dgellow wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't believe they were specifically targeting Unreal Engine, it just got caught in the cross fire and Apple didn't really care. Apple wanted to terminate all the dev accounts belonging to Epic which "just to happens" to include Unreal.

From a comment by onion2k in the other HN thread:

> This is a quote from the letter that Apple sent to Epic;

>> If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:"

>> [...]

>> - Engineering efforts to improve hardware and software performance of Unreal Engine on Mac and iOS hardware; optimize Unreal Engine on the Mac for creative workflows, virtual sets and their CI/Build Systems; and adoption and support of ARKit features and future VR features into Unreal Engine by their XR team

> That is a statement that Apple made saying they will stop all help they give to Epic getting UE running on all Apple hardware. With the other stuff in the letter it makes it very clear that the problem is not just one for Epic Games, but all of Epic.

> You can read it yourself - https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327.... (Apple's letter starts on page 51 of the PDF)

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24269719

So they seem to be very specific and specifically call out work on the Unreal Engine.

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

#97

Post by dep_b »

reissbaker wrote: post #18

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…

> ban Epic from doing other lines of business via macOS tools (e.g. Unreal Engine development) seemed excessive compared to other app bans

No, if you try to smuggle forbidden features through the approval process by hiding them and only enabling them after the app is published your developer account will be terminated immediately. This is clearly documented and Epic knew this up front.

Getting the chance to revert the changes before the account is terminated is what sets apart Epic from most other developers, like people that changed their apps to full emulators after it got approved like what looked like a single game.

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

#98

Post by mythz »

Hamuko wrote: post #95
mythz wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nonsensical, if you could buy the hardware cheaper or iOS separate then you would be paying for iOS, you can't, Apple doesn't sell iOS, it gives it away. The cost for new iOS versions is irrelevant to the cost of hardware it's running on, it's free for all their devices for as long as they meet the hardware requirements for running new versions. You could buy an iPhone and put a jail break OS on it, you're sti…

> You could buy an iPhone and put a jail break OS on it, you're still paying the full amount for the device. If I buy a new TV and throw the remote in the trash, the remote was not part of the cost of the TV? Also, "jail break OS"? Isn't that just iOS?

> If I buy a new TV and throw the remote in the trash, the remote was not part of the cost of the TV?

A hardware remote is, which has an actual per unit cost (a software remote wouldn't be). The cost of Software distribution is effectively $0, a valid comparison would be if you bought your new TV with Android (which costs $0 for the manufacturer to include) you could replace the TV OS with Tizen OS which is also free, neither OS costs anything to the manufacturer or consumer and you don't get it cheaper for purchasing the same TV without an OS.

> Also, "jail break OS"? Isn't that just iOS?

There used to be a healthy alt OS ecosystem for iPhone before newer iPhone's have become increasingly lockdown where it doesn't appear you can do that anymore, the best you can do is JailBreak iOS and install a custom package manager and install custom software not permitted on the App Store.

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

#99

Post by StavrosK »

threeseed wrote: post #20
modeless wrote: post #17

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.

Apple can ban just Fortnite (and any other infringing app) a la carte, without banning the entire account, so they wouldn't need to ban or allow both in the first place.

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

#100

Post by StavrosK »

trumpeta wrote: post #13
supernova87a wrote: post #9

Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pr…

"...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..." Apple is arguing as if accessing their platform…

The problem here is that the majority of discussion around this conflates the iPhone with the App Store. The App Store is a platform, it's fine if Apple wants to charge for curation, distribution, etc.

The iPhone is a hardware device, not a platform, and it's not fine if Apple wants to be the sole guardian of it. Even the court response here conflated the two. Epic doesn't want to be on the App Store for free (that wouldn't be fair), but it does want to be allowed to install its software on iPhones for free (that is fair).

Post reply on HN