Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 151 posts

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#91

Post by danbolt »

bosswipe wrote: post #72
danbolt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it. I feel like apart from 2-3 clients for other web services (eg: Twitter, Slack, etc.) I rarely purchase or download any apps. The last time I can remember installing one was the contact tracing app for where I live. I think I use the iPhone more as an appliance than a general-purpose computer. If I wanted the latter,…

If you wanted the latter you will find more and more that it doesn't exist as the duopoly tightens their grip on the market.

Couldn't I buy a PinePhone or Android and sideload apps if I did?

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#92

Post by freeone3000 »

bosswipe wrote: post #72
danbolt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it. I feel like apart from 2-3 clients for other web services (eg: Twitter, Slack, etc.) I rarely purchase or download any apps. The last time I can remember installing one was the contact tracing app for where I live. I think I use the iPhone more as an appliance than a general-purpose computer. If I wanted the latter,…

If you wanted the latter you will find more and more that it doesn't exist as the duopoly tightens their grip on the market.

You'd buy an android phone. Android phones remain general purpose computers - you can write software that runs on the device, using nothing but the device (and a tool like AIDE, which is on the Play store, and a website you can install it from).

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#93

Post by AnthonyMouse »

shepik wrote: post #89
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's alternatives out there and nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone In what way is this different than a country or a state? Nobody is forcing you to live in California, you could sell your house and get a different job and a different social cohort and move to Florida. Nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, you could sell your phone and replace all your apps and convince everyone you know to switch away fro…

> you could sell your house But you can't sell apps when you switch platforms, so not really sure how this country/state analogy helps

Your claim is that the analogy doesn't work because the cost of moving phone platforms is proportionally higher than the cost of moving house?

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#94

Post by horsawlarway »

thehappypm wrote: post #88
horsawlarway wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So continue to use the Apple store and you have no problems. App not on the Apple store? Don't use the app. So simple. --- I bet your first response to that statement isn't positive - Now reflect that this is exactly what Apple is saying to developers. "Don't want to use our store? Don't release on iOS." Because right now, if you use an application on iOS, you are not a customer of that application. You are an Apple…

My gut reaction to "app not on Apple store" is -- that's life, isn't it? Not every program is available on every store. I can't get Halo on my PlayStation. I can't get certain video editing tools on my PC. I can't get certain productivity software on my Mac. Disjointed app stores are annoying at worst, but I don't really see why there's any legal problem with that.

Legally, we're clearly still in a grey area for this.

Ethically... I find it fairly immoral to intentionally prohibit users who have bought your product from using it in ways you don't like. Courts also tend to look poorly on this, but there's a narrow path to walk between enforcing interoperability and allowing innovation.

I guess I'd say the concepts "sale" and "ownership" are at stake here. If I buy something, I expect to be able to extend/modify/repair/dismantle that device in any way I choose. I OWN it.

In the physical world, it's nearly impossible to put some sort of non-electronic lock on a device that would prevent the user from doing just that. There's no reasonable way to make a cup that could only hold Sprite.

So that status quo up until the last 70 years or so has been "buy means buy" and you own the thing.

Now we have products with incredibly complicated digital locks, though.

It turns out you can prevent users from putting something other than sprite in their cups with a complicated enough digital enforcement mechanism. The question is "should you be allowed to?".

And that's actually a hard question - The answer depends a lot on how many people need to interoperate with you and your products (your marketshare and possible monopoly status), as well as whether you have a genuine benefit you're providing your consumer by limiting that cup to just Sprite.

So legally speaking, Keurig just settled a case about this exact issue (they're out 31 million, btw). This is not nearly as "problem free" as you so clearly want it to be.

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#95

Post by stale2002 »

pwinnski wrote: post #49
stale2002 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where you come down on it should be based on the law. The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law. When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market" This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions,…

What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market." The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices," while the argument in favor of Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own a smartphone." In one of those, Apple is a monopolist. In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.

> In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.

Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market.

Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market.

> the argument in favor of Apple

Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox.

If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#96

Post by Qwertious »

mlindner wrote: post #86
cdash wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming platforms are single use platforms. Mobile phones much like a PC are general purpose devices that peoples entire lives revolve around.

Software is software. What it does isn't the point here. If Apple's use of the Apple store is illegal, so are all the game consoles and they'll be forced to allow people to run any apps they want on them and have competitor app stores.

Sidestepping the whole apple/freedom/consistency argument, are consoles actually good for consumers?

Consoles are fundamentally locked down, as the platform-holder (Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony) sell the console at a loss to drop the market price (impossible for commodity hardware that can be used for other purposes), then recoup their money by taking a fee from every copy of every game sold for their console.

This used to make sense because consoles used to be unique specially-designed hardware that kind of necessitated purpose-designed codebases, but nowadays consoles don't really have a difference compared to commodity PCs. In fact, the latest generation moved to x86 specifically so that they would be more similar to PCs! That was for the sake of letting devs use PC dev tools and it, but IMO there wouldn't be much loss if the consoles were actually 100% compatible OOTB with normal PC applications.

The main reason consoles exist with broken compatibility is:

1. Simpler, potentially more reliable purchasing experience (there's only 1-3 hardware devices that can run your console game, thereby sidestepping the paradox of choice)

2. Social-network lock-in (bad for consumers IMO)

3. Slightly lower upfront costs. Except that's basically not true, it only applies for a specific arbitrary standard of minimum graphical fidelity. A Raspberry Pi will always be cheaper, and a cheap x86 PC should be able to run 2010 games just fine. Batman: Arkham Asylum was from 2009, and is no slouch in terms of graphics. Arguably, consoles are better upfront value for money.

4. Potentially simpler dev target - only one configuration, means QA is easier.

5. Exclusives. In theory it gives devs the chance to make something they wouldn't have made otherwise, or gives them the chance to develop the game specifically around the one hardware architecture, but I'm not convinced either of these are real problems.

6. This isn't related to compatibility but debatably consoles have a better UI than HTPCs. Also, being gamepad-only means you don't get rekt when joining a lobby with KB+M players in FPSes.

Personally, I don't think so. There's more analysis to be done but I'm ending this comment here.

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#97

Post by Retric »

rbecker wrote: post #87
Retric wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means…

> Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do. In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user? How muc…

> ultimate control is with the manufacture, and not the user.

There are a host of ways of describing computer security, but in my mind the most fundamental idea is minimizing the amount of surprises a user faces. A brick might not be a useful stake knife, but it’s secure. Anyone can want more features, but features aren’t security.

If someone goes to a knitting blog they don’t expect it to have access to their exact location via GPS, phone contacts, social security number, bank routing number etc. As such for users to have meaningful control it’s generally 3rd parties not manufactures or users that security needs to deal with. If you want to use online banking you need to trust the device to not be sharing login information with random other apps you happen to have installed, that’s incompatible with allowing such random apps to connect with your bank account.

PS: Hong Kong users benefited from having devices not compromised by the CCP, that’s what I am referring to. Clearly more app stores would let various other apps in, but how may of them would have actually been compromised?

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#98

Post by mthoms »

thehappypm wrote: post #42
Animats wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument is like the railroad antitrust cases of a century ago. "The New York Central Railroad is giving shippers a marketplace of users with large freight terinals, fast locomotives, and railroad sidings already connected. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair." (If you think Comcast is bad, read up on the history of railroad monopolies.)

It's really not like that. The railroads were monopolies. Apple is far from a monopoly -- they're just the platform that rich people like.

Antitrust is not just limited to monopolies. It also pertains to abuse of market power.

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#99

Post by Retric »

cgriswald wrote: post #85
Retric wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means…

> PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument. I downvoted you rather than giving you an argument. Here's why: You've edited your post at least four times. Three of those times was when I was trying to offer a counter-argument. The problem was, you kept changing yours. I'm honestly not sure what you believe, both because you changed it so many times, but also because you haven't defined your ter…

Objectively Mac OS has had more serious security issues than iOS, so at most you can say the trade off is worth it to you not that doesn’t exist.

As to freedom, that was specifically used by the post I was responding to. But, if you’re unsure, consider it in terms of raw assembler vs python. Raw assembler allows more freedom, but that freedom comes at a clear cost.

PS: And yes I edited to specific wording a few times for clarity. That’s a holdover from the days when hacker news would eat comments that where being edited for to long. Reputation is a major concern for Apple as a business, but outside of the scope of this discussion.

Re: Judge dismisses Apple’s “theft” claims in Epic Games lawsuit

#100

Post by zigzag312 »

mlindner wrote: post #86
cdash wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming platforms are single use platforms. Mobile phones much like a PC are general purpose devices that peoples entire lives revolve around.

Software is software. What it does isn't the point here. If Apple's use of the Apple store is illegal, so are all the game consoles and they'll be forced to allow people to run any apps they want on them and have competitor app stores.

What would happen if game consoles would need to open up? Price of consoles would go up and price of games would come down. Net result for the consumer wouldn't be that much different. Of course, the whole dynamics of game consoles business would change much more than this simplified example, but all in all it probably wouldn't be worse, just different.

However, there isn't just an option to completely eliminate walled gardens. There are many possibilities, like limiting what rules are legal, or requiring that equal rules/fees apply to all developers, or limiting max fees, or allowing small fee to be charged even if official store is not used, or requirement that all apps that are available via 3rd party stores are also available on the official store and that base price is the same (markup being the only variable)... I think platform creator should still be acknowledged in some way, just not by having a complete and total control over the platform.

Post reply on HN