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

491–500 of 614 posts

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#491

Post by kbenson »

parasubvert wrote: post #489
kbenson wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since day one security and safety have been the most important feature for iPhone, and the biggest reason consumers select it. That's ridiculous. That has nothing to do with the reason people selected it when it came out. It was pretty, it had features no other phone really had, such as a browser that rendered the same as the desktop and good touch controls, but security and safety had nothing to do with it.

It’s not ridiculous at all - all those reasons you list mattered (though arguably iPhone had fewer features than most phones, Safari notwithstanding), but the tipping points were the App Store and Exchange integration in iOS 2.0 summer 2008. And the iPhone 3G model. that matched the bar that Blackberry had set for security. Companies allowed the switch to iPhone when they realized that it was in theory as secure as B…

The fact you note events after the initial launch are exactly why it's ridiculous to say it's why people chose it for those reasons "from day one".

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#492

Post by dr_dshiv »

pjmlp wrote: post #430
dr_dshiv wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consumers get their apps, there is no undermining taking place. Maybe I should complain that Sony abuses the PS4 market so I can't run Switch titles on the PS4.

This is like if Apple said that you can't download any other software on your Macbook, unless you paid Apple 30% and bought it from their exclusive store.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#494

Post by valuearb »

inopinatus wrote: post #354
valuearb wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple knows their customers better than researchers can ever, esp some small sample of Korean users, and they spend a huge amount of effort promoting security and safety.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#495

Post by throwaway34241 »

gigatexal wrote: post #325
realusername wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But non-developers have no idea about that, let's be honest. Just open-up a mainstream Youtube video about the latest iphone and check whenever they talk about the app review process (hint: never). > Also, I get the sense that people are trying to impose OSS-isms on Apple when they both have no power to and also Apple has no reason to abide. That's why we need anti-trust investigations to both Google and Apple, havin…

Sounds like tyranny to me. All of this imposition to force the market leaders to change instead of championing other champions. Nobody was giving mind to Apple when Rim and Nokia and Sony were the big players. Apple just made a better device that the market liked more. There will be a new better thing to come along it just needs to be invented.

There are network effects with software platforms that give the established players an advantage. Modern smartphones are more like PCs than feature phones where people generally don't care much about the third party software ecosystem.

If Microsoft had as much power over software distribution in the nineties as Apple does now, they would probably have (smartly for them) severely limited or eliminated web browsers, and forced developers to write their internet applications as Microsoft-specific native software instead (or some other proprietary technology). We take the cross-platform internet for granted now but earlier it was not a sure thing.

If many of (what are now) web services only worked on the Microsoft ecosystem, this would have not only deeply entrenched their position in the PC market but also given them a huge advantage in mobile (if Apple even survived long enough to compete there). One of the early iPhone's biggest strengths was having a full web browser (especially since there was no app store initially). If the real draw was MicrosoftNetwork and not the open web, this wouldn't have been a big selling point for the iPhone and it would have been much harder for them to get the ball rolling. Microsoft would have had an enormous amount of time to come out with a phone that can access the MicrosoftNetwork that everyone wants.

And this is all assuming that anti-trust is still enforced enough that Microsoft can't just demand exclusivity from everyone else, or that companies aren't afraid to associate with competitors since they live or die by subjective Microsoft processes.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#496

Post by valuearb »

beaner wrote: post #486
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about advertising. It’s about trust building. Apple has earned trust with me as a user. When I download an app from Apple’s stores it extends its trust to those apps. I feel more comfortable spending money on iOS because of that trust. Take away the trust, and I promise there is significantly less money to be made.

If that were true, Epic would not want to offer its app outside of the app store. But it does, because it's more profitable.

Tim Sweeney may believe that, but he’s made a lot of dumb decisions lately.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#497

Post by valuearb »

beaner wrote: post #487
donor20 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ap…

Apple once let somebody hack my account and purchase the same $20 app 15 times. When I complained, they ignored me. When I charged back the purchases, they canceled my Apple account. Purchasing the same app more than once on the same device shouldn't even be possible. This was back in 2011, but... definitely didn't build trust. But you guys aren't arguing the actual point anyway. The question is whether the forced ap…

I’m sorry for your loss.

But Apple believes the opposite of you, has direct contact with nearly a billion customers, and spends massively on safety/security which they wouldn’t do if it wasn’t important to customers.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#498

Post by yazaddaruvala »

kalleboo wrote: post #474
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All products even with ownership come with rules and regulations. Houses can’t be arbitrarily changed. Cars have governors. Scissors shouldn’t be run with. Ownership of an iPhone is not different. It just has special rules attached. If you don’t mind breaking the warranty, please jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever apps you’d prefer.

> Houses can’t be arbitrarily changed. Cars have governors. Scissors shouldn’t be run with. None of these regulations are decided by the company that manufactured the device, they are all decided democratically by an elected state. How about... Houses can't have arbitrary appliances installed that weren't made by someone approved by the house-builder Cars can't fill up gas from a stand not paying 30% by the car manuf…

Maybe I should have clarified.

The Strata/HOA regulates the appliances, the customizations, even the “look and feel” of my patio.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#499

Post by ksk »

parasubvert wrote: post #118
ksk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Software has always, since it was first sold in the 1960s, been a licensed product/service. You never owned anything - you had a contract for a certain set of functionality and support, maybe upgrades. Tolls like the above were how the mainframe started and are nothing new. We had a historical anomaly with the PC being a hobby platform at its roots where everything felt so free. Legally it never was, that was a marke…

What I'm getting at is the subversion of the control of the platform from the user to the vendor. Maybe it was due to the technical limitations of the time, or the sensibilities of geek-culture, but the vendor never controlled the device once they sold it to you. You didn't need to beg for permission to compile software on mainframes.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#500

Post by ksk »

Bud wrote: post #221
ksk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it is. Sorry, I don't see anything else I can reply to in your comment.
Post reply on HN