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

561–570 of 614 posts

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#561

Post by inopinatus »

valuearb wrote: post #494
inopinatus wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess that works if your values system includes the axiom “whatever Apple spend a lot of money on can’t be wrong.”

Even better if you allow yourself to make giant leaps of assumption about the underlying motives. Then it can justify almost any apology for bad behaviour.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#562

Post by nodamage »

gamblor956 wrote: post #519
stale2002 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not actually the Sherman Antitrust Act they violate, since that law specifically requires a monopoly. It's the followup laws broadening the Sherman Antitrust Act that Apple violates. The amendments to the Sherman Act target anti-competitive behavior that results in market distortive effects, even in the absence of a monopoly. This includes price-fixing, collusion, and using leverage in one market to interfere wi…

This is almost entirely wrong. The Sherman Act has 2 sections. Section 1 prohibits actions like price fixing and bid rigging regardless of market power. It's section 2 that prohibits monopolization and requires monopoly power.

The majority of antitrust claims are brought under the Sherman Act. Apple's ebook price fixing case was brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

All of Epic's federal claims against Apple are alleged violations of the Sherman Act.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#563

Post by manicdee »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #174
manicdee wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Epic, however, takes 5%..... after you pull in $1mil in revenue. That's it. That's it, for now. Epic is trying to set themselves up as publisher like Steam. Once they can get first-party status as an app store on iOS their tune will change. This is about money, and one way to make money is to get people hooked on your product then jack up the price.

The comparison is bogus again. Steam is an independant company with real competition ( epic including) and I can drop it on a moment's notice. How does Epic store become first-party, they get bought by Microsoft? I don't get what you are claiming

First-party status for an app store means being able to install apps on the phone, as opposed to being an app which runs Epic Store games (eg: Bluestacks or Plarium Play).

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#564

Post by simion314 »

sem000 wrote: post #537
simion314 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine having to use another App Store outside Apple... Don't use one, install only Apple approved content from Apple approved stores but don't force everyone to do so. If you want to pay 15-30% more for stuff from the Apple Store then you are free to do so. On PC you can use only Steam, if say you want to buy Fallout 3 today and is 75% of on GOG you are not forced to buy it from GOG, you can buy it from Steam and…

The problem with this logic is that every company is going to set up their own App Store. Microsoft, Epic, etc. Then for every app that I use right now on my iPhone I would have to source from several App Stores. It will make my experience very cumbersome.

I can prove you wrong, how many app stores are on 99% of Android users ? Are Apple,Amazon and Microsoft providing their own shitty Android store to avoid Google and there are no Apple,Amazon and MS apps on Google store?

No, all the websites I seen that offer mobile apps have 2 links, one for Apple and one for Google store . I never seen an app forcing a different store but I know Epic is trying to do that and offer some needed competition.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#565

Post by valuearb »

kbenson wrote: post #491
parasubvert wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

How many people would have stopped buying iPhone due to that epic run of malware and viruses that never happened?

Why does Apple spend so much on safety and security if it doesn’t sell iPhones?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#566

Post by sushid »

speeder wrote: post #526
thaumasiotes wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ. Your failure to find evidence is not an argument. It's not hard to find! Here's a prominent forum thread in the Northgard forum on GoG: https://www.gog.com/forum/northgard/warning_gog_galaxy_is_re... Note that title: "Warning: GOG Galaxy is required to use conquest mode." Conquest mode is a single-player mode. In fact, it's the only mode that allows you to use any of the Northgard DLC content. Without r…

Alright, so it is ONE mode, of ONE game that requires this... that was a (poor in my opinion) decision of the gamedev, nothing to do with GoG Galaxy itself. It is similar to Diablo 3, SimCity 5 and Anno 2070 that have single-player features that are processed server-side, maybe like these ones it is a disguised DRM too. So your original argument is still wrong. Galaxy is not required to play "many newer games", it is…

The other commenter straight up refuted your statement. It’s ridiculous to see you move the goalpost after having been hand-fed the counter evidence.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#567

Post by valuearb »

inopinatus wrote: post #561
valuearb wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess that works if your values system includes the axiom “whatever Apple spend a lot of money on can’t be wrong.” Even better if you allow yourself to make giant leaps of assumption about the underlying motives. Then it can justify almost any apology for bad behaviour.

Look, you have no counter evidence to the contrary, your tiny study of Korean consumers may or may not say something statistically significant about one small market, but nowhere else.

Apple competes with a horde of phone makers who sell cheaper phones at vastly lower profit margins. And who don’t have to spend a dime on OS development.

To compete Apple spends enormous effort in keeping iPhone secure and safe. And it makes safety and security a top iPhone marketing message. And it’s upper management repeats this mantra in interviews.

Apple knows how they came to dominate the high end of the smartphone market, they have pursued the same consistent strategy all the way back before the App Store existed. The first iPhones were locked down not allowing any third part apps. When they opened the App Store the security was already baked in, App Review, ode signing, sandboxing, the works.

It’s easy to be that dude on the internet who doesn’t believe Apple, but they aren’t running a $200B business by the seat of their pants. They have thousands of marketing people talking to customers, and if they could sell more phones by allowing sideloading and alternate app stores they would.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#568

Post by valuearb »

beaner wrote: post #514
valuearb wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have nothing wrong with that. But again, besides the point that this path is always, necessarily beneficial to all users and all developers. It isn't.

It doesn’t have to be. It only has to be beneficial for the vast majority of Apple customers, and it is, which makes it beneficial for the vast majority of Apple developers.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#569

Post by beaner »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #522
beaner wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No data for this exists. This is all my opinion and most importantly feelings about spending money though the AppStore and through any other channel. I will say, for me no other company has built the good will that Apple has. I really doubt that Epic understands the “trust” I speak about. Both because of the general sentiment I see online and as a Fortnite player.

The data for this does exist, it is the fact that Epic does want to offer its game outside the app store, as evidenced by their statements and also by having attempted it for Android.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#570

Post by valuearb »

kbenson wrote: post #547
parasubvert wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some perspective please - The original iPhone had total restrictions and no 3rd party apps. Then they added the App Store the following summer 2008. So of course a major appeal was that it was a curated and totally secure platform was from day one. I know this because I was a many year Blackberry customer and was in the record lines in June 2007.

The vast majority of phones people had at the time were not smartphones. The original iPhone was more "super impressive dumbphone" than smartphone, because it only had what it came with. Unless you were using Symbian, Blackberry, or a Windows Phone (which most people weren't), you had some dumb phone that had a crappy browser that couldn't render well, and whatever shipped on the phone. Maybe some extra ringtones you…

You can understand how iPhone security and safety helped sell it, even though it was (inaccurately as we later found our) viewed as less secure than Blackberry.

People bought iPhones because they trusted it was secure, and chose it over Blackberry because of features and UX. And they kept buying it because it was secure, had the release of the App Store opened the platform to a horde of malware, we would be saying remember when Apple sold iPhones?

People mostly choose their plane flights based on cost, comfort, and time. Not because safety isn’t important, but because it’s assumed it’s by default excellent. Now how high a priority will safety be for travelers when the 737 Max is cleared to fly again?

Post reply on HN