Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#591

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 8:18 AM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #590

stale2002 wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to make the argument, that Epic making a voluntary transaction with me, is somehow an infridgement on you, who is an unrelated, 3rd party. Thats is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make. The fact that I would be allowed to easily install apps on my phone, that I paid for, is a ridiculous claim that this is somehow taking away your choice. No. That is dumb. It is my phone. Not yours. Don't install apps…

I encourage you to improve your discourse, but I’ll participate anyways. My argument is that Apple has significant market power, on iOS devices. There is no denying that. In fact it is a feature for me as a customer to pool my buying power into a “customer’s union” of sorts. I also agree that Apple has built a large barrier to entry, i.e. it has built trust with customers like me. I truly believe you’ve never tried b…

> However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market

A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power.

And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined by section 2 of the sherman act).

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#592

Post by rhn_mk1 » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 8:36 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #511

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When checking Northgard, Galaxy seems to be required for "online content". So it at least seems right that Galaxy is not optional for some stuff. However, I haven't found any evidence that Galaxy is required for single player. In fact, I found evidence to the contrary: the game has a Linux version, where Galaxy is not available.

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…

I'd like to note that the burden of proof lies on the one making an assertion. You can't blame anyone for failing to find evidence for your thesis.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#593

Post by parasubvert » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 2:57 PM UTC

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…

I’m saying it was all of those things: a proper browser, a good industrial design, plus the potential for Blackberry levels of security, which was realized only a year after the initial release. If you want to be a stickler on the OP’s original wording, yes this was more about potential than what the original iPhone shipped.

And anyone who administered BES really wanted to see a market switch to ActiveSync on Exchange, because BES was a massive resource hog on Exchange for no major security benefit over ActiveSync: the messages got routed over auto generated TLS Certs to BlackBerry’s data centers in Canada... so the main benefit was properly configured end to end TLS. Which admittedly wasn’t nothing in the late 90s, so few understood SSL/TLS, and Exchange was a beast, and early ActiveSync was buggy and insecure! But by the mid-late 2000s Microsoft started getting its act together.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#594

Post by beaner » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #568

beaner wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not the point being made.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#595

Post by beaner » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #575

beaner wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This answer feels disingenuous. I feel I’ve made my point fairly clearly. The type of trust building Apple does is a “value add” that a company like Epic doesn’t understand yet. Epic choosing to make this decision isn’t data about Apple’s ability and mindset to earn trust. Epic choosing to make this decision seems to be a short term play at rent seeking before Fortnite stops being popular. Also please read my other c…

The answer is not disingenuous at all, I think you just find it hard to accept because it is simple. You are actually trying to argue that a walled garden app store where users and developers have no other choice is always better for everyone, and that everyone should want it, because the single point of failure man-in-charge knows what's best for everybody. Do you even believe that? Or do you feel compelled to defend Apple?

You're not even making a coherent argument. Epic is making a short-term play at rent seeking? That doesn't make any sense. They're trying to be able to charge for individual products the way they do on any other open platform. Platforms that do not filter through single monolithic app stores, and which - surprise - are successful and enjoyed by millions of users and developers.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#596

Post by rektide » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #460

rektide wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some seriously willful ignorance to pretend that a scriptable scenegraph is the same as a game engine. Netcode, entity systems, loading/streaming systems, matchmaking, achievements, level editors, material/shader editors, model editors, physics, particle systems, lighting, sounds, voice chat, plugin libraries/mods,... the game engine of today is a big thing, & well integrated. Second, who would adopt a platform speci…

The same kind of people that adopt platform specific game engines like PhyreEngine, and sign console exclusives. Apple engines are so bad that Cocos2D-x is basically a copy of their features, using C++ instead of Objective-C/Swift, one of the engines that Google and Microsoft give first class on their platform SDKs. Not every game engine needs to be a bullet point list copy of Unreal capabilities. And no I am not jok…

You're right. It seems like a weird way to build to me, but I can confess to that being a bias. Plenty of people do opt to build to platforms, & adopt narrower tech. Go everyone, whatever you use.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#597

Post by yazaddaruvala » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #591

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to improve your discourse, but I’ll participate anyways. My argument is that Apple has significant market power, on iOS devices. There is no denying that. In fact it is a feature for me as a customer to pool my buying power into a “customer’s union” of sorts. I also agree that Apple has built a large barrier to entry, i.e. it has built trust with customers like me. I truly believe you’ve never tried b…

> However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power. And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined…

I'm curious, how many years have you,

- used an iPhone as your primary device?

- used an Android as your primary device?

- played Fortnite, and on what device?

For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months.

Edit:

Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition", that Epic is just requesting a "basic right" (which they don't seem to be given the Google lawsuit).

I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#598

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #597

stale2002 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power. And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined…

I'm curious, how many years have you, - used an iPhone as your primary device? - used an Android as your primary device? - played Fortnite, and on what device? For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months. Edit: Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android a…

So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems.

It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply.

And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply.

> yet Epic is still suing Google

Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti-trust law applies to them as well, given that they argueably have large amounts of control over the other 50% of the US smartphone market (even if it is a bit less direct of a control, as compared to Apple which is vertically integrated, and controls both the hardware and software. But sure, the case is less clear cut with Google, if you want to make that argument.)

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#599

Post by yazaddaruvala » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #595

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This answer feels disingenuous. I feel I’ve made my point fairly clearly. The type of trust building Apple does is a “value add” that a company like Epic doesn’t understand yet. Epic choosing to make this decision isn’t data about Apple’s ability and mindset to earn trust. Epic choosing to make this decision seems to be a short term play at rent seeking before Fortnite stops being popular. Also please read my other c…

The answer is not disingenuous at all, I think you just find it hard to accept because it is simple. You are actually trying to argue that a walled garden app store where users and developers have no other choice is always better for everyone, and that everyone should want it, because the single point of failure man-in-charge knows what's best for everybody. Do you even believe that? Or do you feel compelled to defen…

Before continuing to participate in this discussion, I'm curious as to the character of person I'm discussing with, how many years have you,

- used an iPhone as your primary device?

- used an Android as your primary device?

- played Fortnite, and on what device?

For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months.

Rationale:

Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition".

I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#600

Post by strictnein » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #282

strictnein wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a weird argument too, as if there was a different service Epic could use to reach > 50% of the US mobile market.

iPhones market share is less than 20%.

Globally, yes. But this is a US legal argument and the courts will care about the US market. Apple has ~50% cell phone share and > 50% app market share in the US.