Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#221

Post by Bud » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

ksk wrote: post #69

jclardy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it is setting a dangerous precedent. A general purpose computing device is now a "service" that you need to pay for. With that logic you can call anything a service. An OS is a service that lets you stream "unlimited" video to your display. Given the level of greed displayed by Apple, they're going to setup a tollbooth at every single spot they can. Maybe Intel can setup the ultimate tollbooth on their CPU by pr…

It does not "set" any new precedent at all, nor is said precedent "dangerous" in any way.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#222

Post by nmfisher » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:00 AM UTC

drivingmenuts wrote: post #88

supernova87a wrote: post #34

Well, it certainly seems clear from a facts point of view at least, that Epic was engineering the plan to test Apple. They prepared a release that contained the ability to bypass the payment mechanism. Then they did that, and told Apple that was what they were doing. And then launched a big marketing campaign to rally support for it. At least in facts, this wasn't a sudden action by Apple to crush an unsuspecting lit…

Epic’s big mistake was assuming that enough consumers care. Certainly Fortnite is popular, but it’s not popular with a large enough percentage of the entire iOS market to support that kind of action.

Luckily, commercial litigation isn't held in the court of public opinion.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#223

Post by Bud » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:01 AM UTC

loktarogar wrote: post #97

m3kw9 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apple platform is more than just the AppStore.

But it's no more value than they get from googles platform, or more importantly their own platform. It's "just another platform" to EPIC.

That's laughable. It's been shown over and over that iOS customers spend a lot more money than Android customers.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#224

Post by jjcon » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #170

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #128

The perfect outcome according to me will be that you could be required to pay apple tax if you use app store to distribute the app, but the user should have a way to install any app outside the store and apple has to provide user a way to let them install it. This will have far reaching consequence for many devices like consoles, home assistants etc. I believe we are simply giving control of the devices we own for no…

> The perfect outcome according to me will be that you could be required to pay apple tax if you use app store to distribute the app, but the user should have a way to install any app outside the store and apple has to provide user a way to let them install it. Isn't that the current situation on Android, and Epic still sued them?

You can also sideload on iOS (without jailbreak), I do it all the time but for some reason no one is talking about that either.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#225

Post by AlphaSite » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:08 AM UTC

hnra wrote: post #213

jjcon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple They do, it’s called buying an iphone

I bought an iPhone despite the App Store, so I don't think that logic really holds.

I don’t know if what you’re saying holds generally. I don’t know if people buy it for the AppStore, but I strongly suspect that most people don’t buy it despite the App Store.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#226

Post by nmfisher » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #82

Epic is a company that reserves the right to sell your data for marketing purposes, says so in their privacy policy. Remember that on Android they first tried to workaround Google Play's limitations by distributing Fortnite outside the store. They caved later. So this isn't about having no ability to distribute Fortnite, rather it's about them wanting easy distribution without paying the tax that everyone else is pay…

This is less about Fortnite and more about a mobile Epic Games Store. That being said, caving to Google and putting Fortnite back on the Play Store dramatically undermines their case, because it shows that how important the Play/App Stores are for distribution & eyeballs. Apple and Google can both claim they invested heavily in that ecosystem for the benefit of publishers and users alike.

I'm the first to criticize Apple for its attitude towards users and developers, but I'm struggling to see how it falls afoul of the law. It's their walled garden - don't like it? Don't play in it.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#227

Post by caf » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

mstolpm wrote: post #152

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…

The price the customer pays is clearly for the package of hardware, operating system and (some) services. The 30% cut developers pay is for a monetized access to Apples iOS APIs. The 99$ fee is for access to developer tools, review processing, "free" access to the platform and more. Different sides, different business concepts.

No, the 30% vig developers pay (both Apple and Google) is for access to the customers. It's what you're being sold for.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#228

Post by YetAnotherNick » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:10 AM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #224

mcphage wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The perfect outcome according to me will be that you could be required to pay apple tax if you use app store to distribute the app, but the user should have a way to install any app outside the store and apple has to provide user a way to let them install it. Isn't that the current situation on Android, and Epic still sued them?

You can also sideload on iOS (without jailbreak), I do it all the time but for some reason no one is talking about that either.

But you can need to do it every 7 days and it requires connecting to PC, right?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#229

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:12 AM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #216

paxys wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't many platforms there are exactly two. And the costs of switching between them are significant enough that this argument holds less water by the day.

> there are exactly two If we are talking about platforms and not codebases there are waaay more than two. iOS (App store) Android (Google Play) FireOS (Amazon App Store) LineageOS (Fdroid) One UI (Galaxy Store) To name a few. These all have distinct and thriving marketplaces for apps with decent market share (some can overlap). The code base they use is irrelevant for this context.

How many of those are installed on more than 1% of mobile devices (however broadly construed)? I think the answer is two. Amazon has like 10% of the tablet market share, but the tablet market is like 1/20th the size of the phone market.

Just to demonstrate that this is the variable that matters, consider the case where there are exactly three devices that have each of the other marketplaces installed on them, respectively. Would they present a meaningful competitive alternative to the big two?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#230

Post by nmfisher » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:12 AM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #185

m3kw9 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view Epic is the full grown capable adult wanting to live in his parents basement for free.

Except no, because Epic wants to move out entirely. They don't want to use Apple's house (read: payments & app store) at all. But Apple has everyone chained up in the basement.

> Except no, because Epic wants to move out entirely. They don't want to use Apple's house (read: payments & app store) at all.

Epic may want you to think that, but it's just not true.

My reasoning? They already tried it on Android, and it failed miserably. They moved out the house entirely, taking their listing off the Play Store and allowing side-loading via their website. I'm assuming they also handled payments themselves, too.

A year or so, they came crawling back to Google, presumably due to a massive drop in users.

It's pretty clear that side-loading is not a commercially effective means of distribution, and publishers need the App/Play Stores to get to users.