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

Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 614 posts

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#101

Post by muststopmyths »

rektide wrote: post #60
loktarogar wrote: post #42

> it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store. Half true. EPIC doesn't really get any value from the App Store except data delivery, which they're more than willing to do themselves. Fortnite is popular enough that the app discovery part of the store is meaningless.

Apple on the other hand gets plenty of value from Epic. For example, 10 years ago, when Epic made the Citadel demo for Apple to show their smartphones could run games. Ground breaking R&D work, gratis for Apple, & legitimizing their devices. https://www.theverge.com/21405805/epic-citadel-2010-annivers... We'll see how much more bad blood Apple can make with developers before people start noticing & caring about the s…

I don't think so.

10 years ago, Epic made the Citadel demo for themselves to show that smartphones could run Unreal Engine 3.

Unity was eating their lunch in mobile. They simply saw how dominant mobile gaming was becoming and did what they had to do to survive.

Absolutely no one was waiting for UE to legitimize Apple's devices. Game developers will use the tools that are present on the platform. All that matters is shipping the game.

The only people who were impressed with Epic's demos were the tech "press".

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#102

Post by parasubvert »

jclardy wrote: post #28
theflyingelvis wrote: post #5

“There is nothing anticompetitive about charging a commission for others to use one’s service,” Apple said in the filing. What about forcing someone or some company to use a service (apple's payment systems)?

The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.

arguably the whole reason for iOS’ success is that it is a service, and not just a passive piece of software. I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs.

Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer. Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties.

This is similar to the shift to cloud computing. It’s more valuable to have a service take care of me than to have the freedom of licensed software .

I’m not saying this stance is without problems - but it does seem to be what the market is saying.

It’s also worth noting that software always has been considered a service in some sectors - enterprise software dating back to the 1970s for example required 21-25% of your purchase price in annual service & support fees with penalties if you terminate.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#103

Post by gpm »

bhouston wrote: post #32
samatman wrote: post #26

I look forward to Epic's next set of suits against Sony and Microsoft, who offer basically identical terms for inclusion on the app platforms for Playstation and Xbox, respectively.

Yeah, I saw this counter argument before, and I wonder the same thing, but does intellectual consistency matter much in the court of law?

In this case it doesn't really, in general it does.

You aren't obligated to sue everyone breaking the law just because you sued one person that did, which seems to be the sum of the "but Xbox and playstation" argument. In that sense, literally not at all.

Intellectual consistency does matter in the sense that courts will... heavily frown upon... you arguing X in one case and not X in another. But that hasn't happened here.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#104

Post by Traster »

inopinatus wrote: post #89
Traster wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that I can put "Cheaper on www.mysite.com" in my amazon description? Why would it be controversial to prohibit someone from advertising a competing service on your platform?

You’re mistaking the platform for the product. I bought an item through Amazon recently and it did come with a bunch of materials inviting me to visit the manufacturer’s website. I bought an app through the App Store and it is prohibited from inviting me to visit the vendor’s website. In contrast, I bought a MMORPG through the PlayStation store and the first thing it did was direct me to the maker's account sign-up.

It's only prohibited to invite you to visit the website whilst you're still on the Apple platform. If you bought a physical item via an in-app purchase that item could include advertising for the external site -the exact same as Amazon.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#105

Post by ShroudedNight »

supernova87a wrote: post #38
AsyncAwait wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like And that's a problem. I am buying an iPhone, per Apple, not renting it. Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware.

> Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware. Well, that can definitely be your opinion. But whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain. Let's at least be clear what's fact and what's desire.

Given your first post:

> ...buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think....

> It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't.

This follow up:

> ...whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain

Appears to at least be an explicit moving of the goal posts, if not claiming advantage from both sides of the argument. Is it clear that the relationship is a legally enforced 'take it or leave it', or isn't it?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#106

Post by loktarogar »

hinkley wrote: post #96
loktarogar wrote: post #42

> it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store. Half true. EPIC doesn't really get any value from the App Store except data delivery, which they're more than willing to do themselves. Fortnite is popular enough that the app discovery part of the store is meaningless.

I wonder what the conversations look like inside of Epic, because it seems to me that trying to make everything in Fortnight feel the same on iOS as it does on PC or console is a huge investment for not the sorts of returns they're looking for. If the iOS version was just an appetizer, then you wouldn't be pushing the volume of DLC that make the Apple tax so apparently onerous for them. If you switch to desktop then…

Fortnite is all DLC. All their money is in people buying cosmetics. I was involved in the Fortnite space for a while and on my website, just showing people the cosmetics available was a massive profit maker for me.

And since some people (of the younger variety) can't get a PC to game on, but do have a mobile device, cutting themselves off to that profit defeats some of the financial incentive to be on that platform.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#107

Post by jrockway »

balls187 wrote: post #90
jrockway wrote: post #3

Apple writes in their court filing: “Epic sought to enjoy all of the benefits of Apple’s iOS platform and related services while its ‘hotfix’ lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense.” It seems that Apple has forgotten that each iPhone user already paid Apple hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the iPhone itself. It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, jus…

> If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone. Epic runs their own digital distribution platform, in which they also take a cut of the sales. Their terms are different than Apples, but they still do take a cut of sales. Epic also takes 5% royalties for any (non-free) game built with Epic's Unreal Engine. Epic and Apple have the same bus…

It doesn't really matter what Epic is doing. Loot boxes, game engines, and game mechanics aren't the issue here. The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. You know what? I played Fortnite and I hated it. I won't be installing Fortnite or buying any skins for it. But, Epic has the right to offer their product to me without interference. Apple already has $1000 of my money (actually wayyyy more than that), and now I don't want them involved in my life anymore. I think I'm entitled to that.

> (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game)

I think Epic did it better. That's why we don't give intellectual property rights to vague ideas like "100 players parachute into an island and shoot each other" or "after a certain amount of time a circle kills people outside of it". PUBG had their take -- super boring stakeouts to get hyper-realistic weapons. Fortnite had their take -- cartoony jumping around while you build forts. Players can choose which they want to play. (And, of course, there are like 8 billion other battle royales.)

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#109

Post by simonh »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #31
supernova87a wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to be specific, buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think. And it comes without any statement/guarantee about how Apple charges the developers or the agreements there. Most people have no idea, and don't care. Some apps choose to make their apps free, others choose to charge fees. Some want to have their in…

> your buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like And that's a problem. I am buying an iPhone, per Apple, not renting it. Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware.

I agree that once you own it, you have the right to do with it what you like. I have personally jail broken an iPod Touch and an iPhone to load Cydia on them back in the day and I believe I had the right to do so.

On the other hand you and I don’t have the right to dictate to Apple what software they write and what features it has. That includes features for installing and managing software packages, software upgrades, security features, etc.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#110

Post by ncw96 »

dgellow wrote: post #39
noahtallen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just charge them for development tools Thing is, Apple still charges $100 USD per year for a developer license which lets you distribute your app, so this is already happening! :)

Even worse. $100 is for individual developers, it’s $299 per year for organizations. Google asks for $25, once, for a team that can be an individual or an organization, as you wish.

If you are an organization, Apple’s fee is still $99 per year for the standard account with App Store publishing access.

There is a second program called the Apple Developer Enterprise Program, which is $299 per year, and is only required if you wish to deploy apps for internal use across your organization without using the App Store.

Post reply on HN