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

351–360 of 614 posts

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#351

Post by rimliu »

raydev wrote: post #162
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…

>> This license is free to use and incurs 5% royalties when you monetize your game or other interactive off-the-shelf product and your lifetime gross revenues from that product exceed $1,000,000 USD. > And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing. Apple takes 30% off all purchases upfront, and maybe they'll cut you a deal if you're Netflix-size. On top of that, Apple's "…

Nice cherry picking skills.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#352

Post by phepranto »

danielheath wrote: post #350
simion314 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 web…

It's not a good thing that I need 6 stores installed to play the games I've bought, each with their own updater pulling several gigabytes a week off the net just to keep the store app up-to-date. I'd be interested to see whether any jurisdiction would hand down a consumer mandate for unbundling the DRM component from the storefront app; the former only updates occasionally.

I find it hard to believe that all stores combined patch a single gigabyte in a week, let alone every store patching multiple gigabytes. The size of the stores and their patches are negligible compared to installing any modern game.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#353

Post by tssva »

canofbars wrote: post #218
cf_ wrote: post #203

I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial. Apple and Epic arguing over what is best for the customer, while clearly they are having their own interests in mind, screams for the actual customers to be represented. The whole argument about them promoting an app „for free“ is a bit ridiculous. They clearly knew the amount of commission they were going to earn from pushing…

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…

Android allows installation of apps outside of the Google Play store but Epic is pursuing the same path against Google.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#354

Post by inopinatus »

valuearb wrote: post #278
inopinatus wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no history of consumers overcoming price elasticity on the basis of software platform security preferences, so that's a bold claim requiring hard evidence.

In contrast, here's a study that says even consumers in one of the most technologically aware regional markets do not perceive a difference between iOS and Android safety:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316573401_A_Study_o...

which is much more in keeping with just about everybody's experience of people outside the tech echo chamber.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#355

Post by Kuinox »

tssva wrote: post #353
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…

Android allows installation of apps outside of the Google Play store but Epic is pursuing the same path against Google.

Yes, for a different reason. Epics wanted a deal with oneplus for to have epic store preinstalled on their device, and google pressured oneplus to cancel the deal.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#356

Post by wruza »

phaus wrote: post #261
jjcon wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many of those are installed on more than 1% of mobile devices 4/5 in the examples I gave. Google, Apple, Samsung and Amazon all have decent market share.

Samsung's market is installed on a substantial percentage of phones but almost no one on any of those devices uses anything besides the regular Google Play store. So while you technically answered his question in the larger conversation Samsung's app store isn't a competitive alternative. I couldn't find robust stats on Amazon's market share overall but I did find that they sold 5.3% of all tablets in Q3 2019. So if…

So users do use playstore in the presence of the other store. Doesn't that contradict the argument that they are poor non-tech walled-gardened who cannot choose? This entire farce is about developers who want to control platforms they do not own, on devices they do not own, with users who do not even want to deal with them under rules other than playstore ones.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#357

Post by sunderw »

parasubvert wrote: post #79
wayneftw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look forward to hearing an argument about how game consoles are nearly as important to society or as ubiquitous, as smart phones.

Ticketmaster for concerts Scientific journals Vehicle firmware and apps The list goes on. Apple’s policies aren’t monopoly by any historic definition: it’s complaining about commission rates, not about blocking market access, since you always can just pick a different platform. Unless iOS and Android needs to be declared a public utility.

I think you gave very good examples. For me, Ticketmaster and scientific journals abuse their position and there should be laws to prevent that.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#358

Post by jbverschoor »

canofbars wrote: post #323
DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone, it's simple as that. They're free to manage their platform in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not use that platform. --- I'm not necessarily saying I think Apple is in the right, but your argument doesn't hold because it works equally well when applied at a higher level, which runs counter to your point.

>If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone This is not the main issue, its on the other end. If you are a developer, and you don't like the App Store, you have no options. You can't publish on an alt store because those are not allowed. So your only option is to not provide services to 50% of your customers and thats assuming the google play store doesn't have the same issue you are avoiding. A real world…

Same for Nintendo, PS, Xbox, Android. And the other 'appstores' - steam, epic, etc

Quite frankly, the lockdown of the OS and rejection of this is one of the primary reasons I'm on iPhone.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#359

Post by stale2002 »

danbolt wrote: post #345
stale2002 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

Just to clarify, in this case, Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services?

> Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services?

Sort of. There are two possible avenues of attack here against Apple. And it depends on how the market is defined.

1: if the "market" is defined as you have, which is a "monopoly on apple services", then it absolutely true that Apple does have a monopoly on the specific market as defined by "Apple services", and I would accept 10 to 1 betting odds on that.

BUT, I think it is a bit of a stretch that the "market" will be defined that narrowly. Instead I think that the market will be defined as the smartphone market share of the USA.

2: If the market is defined as the smartphone market, in the USA, then the argument will be that Apple has control of ~50% of the market, in a 2 entity duopoly. It is a common misconception, that anti-trust law only applies in cases, of a overwhelming singular monopoly. Instead, anti-trust law, applies even in cases where there is not a singular monopoly, and the company in question only has significant market power.

Controlling 50% of the market share, is a bit on the edge of whether anti-trust law applies, or does not apply, as according to government guidance. So the case is far from a slam dunk, and I think that there will be interesting arguments brought up in court.

But, even though Apple has less market share than, say Microsoft did, when Microsoft lost their anti-trust case, I think that Apple's actions are significantly more restrictive than Microsoft's was, and thus this contributing factor will push them over the edge into losing the case.

I expect that this case will be a landmark case, that will determine future court actions, and will be even more significant than the microsoft case was.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#360

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #283
applecrazy wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The GoG launcher doesn't fit here as an example; it's entirely optional.

Unless you want to play online.

Some of the titles on the store allow peer to peer connection multiplayer which doesn’t have any drm checks. But most titles that use servers to simplify matchmaking or connection with other players have a check that validates that gog galaxy is logged into an account that has purchased the game.

Post reply on HN