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

101–110 of 121 posts

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

#101

Post by StavrosK »

rimliu wrote: post #57
ThatPlayer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's your choice, but forcing that onto everyone is anti-competitive.

How is that being forced on everyone? E. g. I do not use Steam, so they can do whatever they want, it would have zero effect on me.

Steam isn't manufacturing computers. This is about Apple the computer manufacturer. It's unfair for them to lock their computers/phones down so people can't install software without Apple's permission.

The App Store is more or less a red herring here (relevant only to the 30% fee being too much).

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

#102

Post by StavrosK »

mythz wrote: post #70
sumedh wrote: 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.

You're paying for iOS, the phone is free.

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

#103

Post by sumedh »

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…

> it's free for all their devices

Have you never heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

The reason Apple does not sell the hardware at a cheaper cost should tell you that the OS is not free. The cost is included. Its a package deal.

> it's free for all their devices for as long as they meet the hardware requirements for running new versions.

If the OS is free then why not let it run on very old models, it will run very slow but that should not matter since the OS is free, right?

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

#104

Post by philliphaydon »

modeless wrote: post #80
philliphaydon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is, Netflix didn't hide code and then later enable it to support another payment option inside their app. They tried to redirect users to a website when signing up for premium. What Epic did was hide code and later enable the feature.

Netflix hid code and later enabled it to redirect users to a non-Apple payment method. Epic hid code and later enabled it to redirect users to a non-Apple payment method. They did the exact same thing.

Have you got citation? I cannot find anything on google about Netflix hiding and enabling code. The only thing your link states is once the subscription ends the user is redirected to the browser to pay, so, not the same time.

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

#105

Post by mythz »

StavrosK wrote: post #102
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.

You're paying for iOS, the phone is free.

Yeah that's right it costs $1249 for each download of iOS (Beta's are 1/2 price), but Apple gives you as many iPhone Max Pro's as you want, mailed along with your free sim! Which doesn't matter if you lose or break out of warranty you can always get a new replacement Free! Family plans are the best, you can install your 1 iOS purchase on 5 free iPhone's - giving free iPhone's away was truly an ingenious revolutionary business model.

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

mythz wrote: post #105
StavrosK wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're paying for iOS, the phone is free.

Yeah that's right it costs $1249 for each download of iOS (Beta's are 1/2 price), but Apple gives you as many iPhone Max Pro's as you want, mailed along with your free sim! Which doesn't matter if you lose or break out of warranty you can always get a new replacement Free! Family plans are the best, you can install your 1 iOS purchase on 5 free iPhone's - giving free iPhone's away was truly an ingenious revolutionary…

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by mythz »

sumedh wrote: post #103
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…

> it's free for all their devices Have you never heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? The reason Apple does not sell the hardware at a cheaper cost should tell you that the OS is not free. The cost is included. Its a package deal. > it's free for all their devices for as long as they meet the hardware requirements for running new versions. If the OS is free then why not let it run on very old…

> Have you never heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

Yes, it's a meaningless cliche which is often untrue (I've had many free lunches myself). But "free/gratis" does have a definition to mean "without cost or payment", e.g. how much it costs to acquire/download every version of iOS going back a decade.

Have you ever heard of alternative business models? Try Googling Android, Tizen OS, Web OS, Firefox OS for alternative mobile OS's, it's nearly impossible to for a mobile OS to become mainstream if you had to pay for it.

> If the OS is free then why not let it run on very old models, it will run very slow but that should not matter since the OS is free, right?

Because Apple has to support the devices it says it supports & they don't run acceptably. This isn't new, a lot of commercial software wont support software that doesn't meet a minimum hardware requirement.

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

#108

Post by sumedh »

mythz wrote: post #107
sumedh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's free for all their devices Have you never heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? The reason Apple does not sell the hardware at a cheaper cost should tell you that the OS is not free. The cost is included. Its a package deal. > it's free for all their devices for as long as they meet the hardware requirements for running new versions. If the OS is free then why not let it run on very old…

> Have you never heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? Yes, it's a meaningless cliche which is often untrue (I've had many free lunches myself). But "free/gratis" does have a definition to mean "without cost or payment", e.g. how much it costs to acquire/download every version of iOS going back a decade. Have you ever heard of alternative business models? Try Googling Android, Tizen OS, Web OS…

> I've had many free lunches myself

So the other part did not want anything from you, what was the purpose of the free lunch then?

Not sure why you are looking at download costs, how about the employee costs who develop IOS.

If you googled those business models you will understand that there is no free lunch, similarly there isnt one with IOS, you pay for it when you buy the device.

> Because Apple has to support the devices it says it supports & they don't run acceptably.

No that is not true, Apple has no problems when IOS does not run "acceptably", infact they make it a feature so that IOS runs slow on older phones so that people will buy new phones to pay for IOS. That is the kind of shady behaviour Apple has to do when IOS is not free.

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

#109

Post by gpm »

dogma1138 wrote: post #10
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #4

Ooph. I'm betting that Epic was expecting to get to stay on the app store during the trial. That's an expensive difference. I would guess that Epic will retract its change and ask to be relisted on the app store (and if that doesn't happen, seek rapid redress in the court, since this TRO decision explicitly lists Epic's ability to be reinstated as a rationale for why there is no risk of irrevocable harm).

I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care, I think they are using Apple because a) its an easy target and if they win the ruling can be expanded to other platforms too where they currently make the most money on and b) while they aren’t a major source of revenue now Epic probably has bigger plans for mobile centric games down the line. Basically now it’s the best time for them…

> I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care

IIRC they said 11% during the hearing, I don't remember if that was 11% of Fortnite revenue or total revenue, and I don't remember if that might have included android as well.

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

#110

Post by dogma1138 »

gpm wrote: post #109
dogma1138 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care, I think they are using Apple because a) its an easy target and if they win the ruling can be expanded to other platforms too where they currently make the most money on and b) while they aren’t a major source of revenue now Epic probably has bigger plans for mobile centric games down the line. Basically now it’s the best time for them…

> I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care IIRC they said 11% during the hearing, I don't remember if that was 11% of Fortnite revenue or total revenue, and I don't remember if that might have included android as well.

This makes more sense and closer to the figure i kinda pulled out of thin air just based on the size of the playerbase, the 500M> figure was way too much considering that Fortnite only generates about 1.8b a year and it's revenue is going down.

Android is likely a much much smaller to the point of being a rounding error for Epic right now, there aren't many devices that can play the game right and in the markets that they actually get revenue from they aren't that popular.

I don't think Epic has any other games on the App Store tbh, and they probably didn't include licensing revenue.

Post reply on HN