Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#271

Post by baq » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:30 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.

Me too more or less, I’ve got an iPhone because it mostly just works and I can expect to get 5 years of life out of it, which makes it more affordable than most android phones, flagship or not. (My last Android was a nexus 5x.)

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#272

Post by valuearb » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:35 AM UTC

beaner wrote: post #50

Traster wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for…

They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging fo…

The App Store generates nearly 10 times as much revenues for developers per device sold as Google Play. How is building a safer walled garden that attracts the highest spending customers and makes them extremely comfortable with buying apps and subscriptions not a massive amount of utility?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#273

Post by dgellow » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:35 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #84

dgellow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even wor... really? That is less than the coffee bean budget for a month at most of these organizations. They probably spend more than that a year on parts and labor for the coffee equipment. That organization fee is a token fee. A little friction so that it makes you serious and it stings a bit if it gets cancelled. To maybe not faff about and get down to shipping a product. A few bucks to cover things like CA maint…

It’s 10 times the $25 from Google Play, and is per year. That’s in addition to the $100 that you have for the Apple store as far I understood their documentation.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#274

Post by vbezhenar » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:36 AM UTC

applecrazy wrote: post #243

canofbars wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem here is that companies are forced to accept apples terms. Because apple controls every level of the stack, to opt out of the App store ToS you have to opt out of the store, the OS, and the hardware. If there was a way to install apps outside of the store this would not be an issue. Most users and developers would still use the app store since it provides value but devs who feel that they can supply t…

> devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves. The issue I have with that is that then a ton of companies think it's a good idea to ship a crappy "launcher" that needs to run on startup, taking up resources in the background while providing little to no added functionality. We can see that with PC games; it used to be just Steam, but now there's the Epic Games La…

If you don't like their launchers, don't use their apps, it's simple as that. They're free to create a software in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not to use that software.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#275

Post by dgellow » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:37 AM UTC

ncw96 wrote: post #110

dgellow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct, I mixed “enterprise” and “organization”. Thanks for the clarification and additional details

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#276

Post by valuearb » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:37 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.

You bought a phone whose major customer value is it’s walled garden, but you don’t want a walled garden? That doesn’t seem right.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#277

Post by simion314 » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:39 AM UTC

applecrazy wrote: post #243

canofbars wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem here is that companies are forced to accept apples terms. Because apple controls every level of the stack, to opt out of the App store ToS you have to opt out of the store, the OS, and the hardware. If there was a way to install apps outside of the store this would not be an issue. Most users and developers would still use the app store since it provides value but devs who feel that they can supply t…

> devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves. The issue I have with that is that then a ton of companies think it's a good idea to ship a crappy "launcher" that needs to run on startup, taking up resources in the background while providing little to no added functionality. We can see that with PC games; it used to be just Steam, but now there's the Epic Games La…

And this is a good thing, competition between this stores is good for the users, some users got free games, some developers got better deals.

The "needs to launch on startup" is FALSE , you can have this launchers set no to start at all and you launch the game and the launcher will start if needed (not all Steam games need Steam in background).

FYI GOG launcher is optional, you can just download the game from the website with a browser and then install it as in old times.

Competition is good and except the Epic drama I did not see anyone complaining the GOG, HumbleBundle, itch.io or downloading from Patreon is a bad thing for PC. I expect though if Apple blocks all launchers on the new OSX for ARM then an army of people will say that downloading a small game directly from Patron is too complicated and insecure for the average Apple user mind.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#278

Post by valuearb » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:40 AM UTC

inopinatus wrote: post #158

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, this is essentially an argument that Apple owns the scope of consumer choice and can decide what you, the consumer, may or may not do and see with hardware and software that you have paid for. It has direct parallels to that age-old argument beloved of software lawyers that consumers do not own their copy of installed software, but are merely borrowing it by the grace of the vendor.

The major consumer benefit of the iPhone is the walled garden. Consumers buy iPhones specifically because of safety and security. App curation is a big part of that.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#279

Post by chipotle_coyote » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

morsch wrote: post #251

AlphaSite wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They might resent the app store more if they knew Apple gets 30%. Which is why nobody is supposed to tell.

The 30% cut was literally announced on stage by Steve Jobs when they introduced the App Store in 2008, and again when in-app purchases were introduced in (I think) 2009. It's been in public coverage for years. They talk about it regularly; remember, Apple's position has been to say, loudly and repeatedly, that this is just a terrific deal for everybody. The fees are not secret.

Also, remember that in practice, the vast majority of people downloading applications on Android are doing so through Google Play, which charges the same 30% fee for both apps and in-app purchases. If people resent Apple more than Google in this context, it's probably more to do with the companies' respective public images than concrete reality.

I suspect you're remembering recent news about Apple preventing Facebook from putting a notice in the Facebook iOS app about Apple taking 30% of the cut from event tickets purchased through the app. While that was arguably a bad move on Apple's part from a PR standpoint -- lately they've been seriously violating the First Rule of Holes[1] -- there's little indication it's a change in policy.

[1] When you're in one, stop digging.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#280

Post by valuearb » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #167

parasubvert wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clou…

> I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs. We would never even be at the level we're at if there weren't those malware-plagued PCs and their open marketplace of software and operating systems competing with each other. > Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer. You mean Windows did, because A) it was the OS of the vast majority of…

There is a huge difference between having your PC not work because of viruses and your phone. Since day one security and safety have been the most important feature for iPhone, and the biggest reason consumers select it.