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

411–420 of 614 posts

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#411

Post by dr_dshiv »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #348
pjmlp wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have the choice to buy other brands.

They also have the choice to avoid smartphones altogether. What they want, though, is the ability to use apple hardware and non-apple software. The only reason they can't is because Apple won't let them, unless they pay a 30% commission

Apple owns the marketplace on their platform. When they undermine competing payment systems using their monopoly power then they appear to be acting anticompetitively in a manner that is against the consumers best interest.

This is only an issue when they use their monopoly power to undermine consumer interests.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#412

Post by mgoetzke »

cjoelrun wrote: post #129
bww wrote: post #120

This is a very bad look on Apple. Regardless of the enforceability of their agreements, the sense of entitlement that underlies Apple’s position is shocking. The claim that Epic has “lined [its] pockets at Apple’s expense” implies that Apple deserves to sit in the middle of every transaction that happens on their devices and take a margin. This is the world’s most valuable company we’re talking about here; assertions…

Isn't a better analogy that car dealerships deserve revenue for selling Toyota's cars? Running an app store and providing a safe platform for users isn't free right?

If they were personally involved in each individual app sale that argument would hold.

Since the extra cost between selling 1 copy and 1 million copies is not the same as between selling 1 car and 1 million cars.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#413

Post by dep_b »

andy_ppp wrote: post #361
dep_b wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Epic itself cannot do it for less than 12% selling only the best earning category and serving barely any free games when they're trying to _prove_ that it can be done for less than 30% apparently running an App Store isn't as trivial as most people at HN make it appear to be. Also the 30% "rent seeking" happens on any platform Epic is on except the PC and Mac. They tried to go around the Google Play Store and pivo…

>>> Epic itself cannot do it for less than 12% What makes you think this? How do you know they cannot do an App Store for less than 12%? Also there is such a thing as economies of scale - the app store probably sells many times more things than the Epic version. You seem to mistakenly think the cost of selling X items on an App Store has a cost that is "cost of app store per thing" * "number of things sold". This isn…

> What makes you think this? How do you know they cannot do an App Store for less than 12%?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_Store "Epic Games had settled on a 12% revenue cut for titles published through the store"

> This isn't true, the cost of the App Store is fixed and has almost NOTHING to do with number of things sold.

OK so you say the whole % of sale model is completely wrong and people should just pay a fixed fee to be in the App Store? Explain it to Epic please.

https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/product/tony-hawks-pro...

45 euro means they cash roughly 5.40 on the sale of this item at 12%. The item is a game comparable in size so has comparable hosting fees as Fortnite in the iOS App Store. Yet charge more than twice as much to host it, not changing the fee even if they have more than 117 million people that buy it.

So what's really fair to you?

-------

Can't reply anymore, so I'll update here instead:

It's fairly simple. Fortnite and Tony Hawk are comparable AAA game titles, with the same amount of updates, same download size, etcetera. Yet Epic manages to milk the double out of each sale of Tony Hawk because of it's retail price. But retail price has _nothing_ to do with the cost Epic has to distribute Tony Hawk (as you argumented so well).

Epic pays a bit more than 2 bucks to Apple to host their AAA title, but couldn't turn a profit on it's own store if it had to distribute Tony Hawk for the same amount of money.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#414

Post by invalidusernam3 »

Traster wrote: post #406
invalidusernam3 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely that position would only apply if Apple hadn't removed the game from the app store? If myself as an indie dev breaches the TOS and my app store account is suspended, surely Apple can't sue me for lost revenue because they opted to suspend my account? Imagine the precedent that would set: Apple could sue you for lost income if you break the store TOS causing your app to be removed. I think Apple would have…

Oh, I see where you're coming from. No, the way that Epic have been suspended is such that they can't put out any more updates, but people who already have the game installed still have it, the game doesn't get deleted from your phone, so people are still using it and still buying stuff direct from Epic.

Ah yeah that makes sense. In that case, Apple does have a pretty strong case here, will be interesting to see the result

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#415

Post by mgoetzke »

simonh wrote: post #71
beaner wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So if stores don’t provide any utility over side loading, how come Epic gave up on relying on side loading on Android, which allows it, and ended up on the Play Store? It’s literally that exact scenario.

Stores do hold a value. A great one. BUT there has to be a few tiers between we are really losing money by hosting this to we are raking in hundreds of millions. If should cover cost, it should cover opportunity, it should have a margin.

In essence Apple is running an Apple App incubator :) Getting 30% of anything, anybody ever makes on it, with basically no risk on it since the actual cost of reviewing the apps and hosting them is pretty fixed.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#416

Post by yazaddaruvala »

cf_ wrote: post #198
nullc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The customer is the product isn't just limited to advertising companies. It follows naturally that Apple considers you their property and believes they can control others doing business with you. Which, in fact, they can-- if you use their products. There is, however, a straightforward way to stop them: Don't use their products.

True, you could stop using their products, but you could also argue that when you buy a product (and not a software license), you should be able to do what you like with that product. It should certainly be within the customers rights to use a physical product the best way they see fit and not the best way the manufacturer sees fit. I mean: I paid for it outright, I received what essentially is a computer by all mean…

This is like buying a hair dryer and asking, “where is the cold air feature? If it can blow hot air, I should be able to disable the part that makes the air hot. I bought the product outright!”.

The reality is, you bought a product that accurately advertised its features. Were you ever misled into thinking that an iPhone could download non-AppStore apps? If so, please return your phone you are owed a refund and maybe even sue for false advertising.

Meanwhile, if you bought the product like me knowing the product’s features. It feels disingenuous to now want more from the product.

If you want to jailbreak your iPhone, do it. But you really shouldn’t expect Apple to provide updates or support your warranty once you choose to. The same as if you opened up a hair dryer, and disabled the part that heats the air the warranty would be void.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#417

Post by krtkush »

tasssko wrote: post #369
realusername wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ToS is up to the owner of the platform When there's only two companies fully controlling the next era of computing platforms, there's some argument that they have way too much power in their hand. > The game is like a car that drives on a road. The car is Epic's Fortnite. The road is a toll road. The road was built by Apple. Many cars can drive on this road but must pay a fee. (The analogy isn't 1:1 but work wi…

A better analogy is the game is like a ride at a theme park. The theme park was built by Apple. Many companies can make games/rides for the theme park but must pay a share of revenue from each customer going on rides. You can go on a ride at the theme park but you pay an entrance fee for the theme park and you pay to go on the rides.

But what if there are only 2 theme parks in the world and ride makers have no option but to comply with whatever rules these 2 theme parks come up with?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#418

Post by donor20 »

valuearb wrote: post #272
beaner wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly this.

I pretty happily try out subscription apps on iOS (which I rarely to never do online). Why? It's darn easy to cancel. I get a reminder in advance even. This contrasts in my experience with nearly EVERY other auto-billing approach out there. The time I sometimes spend calling people to cancel stuff (that I could sign up for online) is ridiculous.

Another nice touch that builds trust. I once deleted an app and iOS reminded me to cancel the subscription if I wasn't going to reinstall! I mean, every other store will keep the auto-bill going forever.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#419

Post by yazaddaruvala »

kbenson wrote: post #164
gpm wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;) I'm sure Apple will be thrilled with this line of reasoning and will definitely argue it (/s). (In case it's not clear, I'm agreeing with the person I'm responding to, sarcasm over the internet is hard).

> But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;) Yep. That's the argument I've been making for a couple weeks now. Mainly, that Apple's actions are anti-competitive, even if they may not match the current definition of monopoly. If the harm is great enough though, then we should maybe…

This feels like the right compromise. Allow for non-iOS iPhones similar to booting into windows on a MacBook.

How to deal with the warranty is the tricky part. Custom software can degrade the hardware. It seems fair that Apple should provide easier access to dev tools for bare-metal iPhone programming and jailbreaking but is no longer liable for the device.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#420

Post by speeder »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #386
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, GoG Galaxy is not entirely optional. It is required to run many newer games, and can be required even if you're not trying to play multiplayer . I don't understand how this is supposed to be compatible with GoG's marketing as "the DRM-free home for games".

What game requires GoG Galaxy?

EDIT: even googled it, found out Darkest Dungeon by default install a version that does need GoG Galaxy, but the DRM-free version is available on GoG site too, just need to choose that downloader instead. But that was it. Didn't found any other obvious complaints of GoG Galaxy being required.

Post reply on HN