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

111–120 of 151 posts

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

#111

Post by Spivak »

horsawlarway wrote: post #75
thehappypm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not seem fair as a developer, but as an iPhone user, I don't have any problem with all my apps coming from one trusted store. Just compare it to Windows. Apps can still be downloaded in several inconsistent ways, and it's hard to trust applications you download arbitrarily.

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…

The value of iOS devices being entirely Apple controlled is precisely because it enables Apple to bully developers into behaving. Alternative stores aren’t about user choice; software is in most cases non-fungible. If I need OneNote there is one company that sells it and I must go to a store where it’s offered. Today if Microsoft doesn’t want to follow Apple’s rules they can pound sand and lose out on the whole iOS market. Tomorrow they will just go to another store and user has gained zero choice.

Like it sucks that it takes a trillion dollar company and total control of the platform to get developers to sorta kinda not mistreat their users but the “the individual right to not use bad apps” has done exactly nothing.

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

#112

Post by Retric »

rbecker wrote: post #104
Retric wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the most fundamental idea is minimizing the amount of surprises a user faces I wouldn't call being given the master key to my own computer "surprising".

What’s your specific objection here? Is it somehow not acting as you assumed it would when you bought it, because that’s what surprise means not simply being annoyed with someone’s business model.

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

#113

Post by heavyset_go »

FDSGSG wrote: post #106
heavyset_go wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create). To put this in perspective consider these stats. In the US, iOS has 52.4% of the mobile OS market[1], and Android has 47%. In the US, Apple's App Store is responsible for the majority of mobile app sales[2], and has 3…

Given how much higher the iOS app sales are, it seems like Apple is providing very significant value for that 30% cut of theirs

It would be great for developers and users if there were real competition in app distribution. That way people can decide if the 30% fee is truly worth it compared to the competition that might be more efficient or offer more value, or that might charge less.

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

#114

Post by AnthonyMouse »

d1zzy wrote: post #110
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…

It's a bit of a stretch to be comparing using a different smartphone (you don't even need to use ANY smartphone) and moving the place where you live, work, etc. Next, we'll see people complaining how google.com should be displaying alternative search engine links on their frontpage because it's too hard for people to type bing.com.

> you don't even need to use ANY smartphone

You don't even need to live indoors either. You don't need a telephone, you don't need oil, you don't need to make things out of steel. You can live without any of it.

Antitrust isn't about how much you need something, it's about competition. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly on cotton candy, regardless of the fact that nobody actually needs cotton candy.

Moreover, the point of the analogy is to demonstrate switching costs. Phone platform transitions are costly. You not only have to replace your device but all your apps, your operating system (which incurs training costs), any services that are only supported or well-supported on one platform including those with network effects that are used by other people, etc. It's not at all trivial and can involve tens of hours of labor. So if that's what you have to do in order to have a choice in where you can buy a $1 app, that isn't really a choice. It's not anywhere close to cost effective to do it even if the competitor is charging $0.70 for the app instead of $1.

And you would have to do it every time. Even if you switched to Android, now you're stuck in a different market -- Google Play doesn't have to worry about you buying the next app from Apple, because to do that you would have to pay to switch back.

> Next, we'll see people complaining how google.com should be displaying alternative search engine links on their frontpage because it's too hard for people to type bing.com.

Does Android only work with Google and if I want to use Bing I have to buy an iPhone? How many hours does it take to type bing.com?

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

#115

Post by fakedang »

thehappypm wrote: post #109
horsawlarway wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

I do think there’s a bit of absurdity to this, though. I have a smart fridge. Is LG unethical for not letting me run Android apps on the little LCD? I have a right to that, don’t I? The answer seems to become, I own the fridge, I can change it how I want, it I can figure out how, I can put whatever software I want on it. Same with an iPhone—it’s my device, I can use it as a paperweight if I want, if I want, I can run…

I think the question here is whether the arbitrary restrictions dissuade you from performing the primary function of the device. For the fridge, not having android apps does not stop your using it as a fridge, which was what it was made for. For the iPhone, not letting apps run without going through the Appstore is a direct hindrance to the function of a smartphone, which is to run apps.

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

#116

Post by 8note »

FDSGSG wrote: post #106
heavyset_go wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create). To put this in perspective consider these stats. In the US, iOS has 52.4% of the mobile OS market[1], and Android has 47%. In the US, Apple's App Store is responsible for the majority of mobile app sales[2], and has 3…

Given how much higher the iOS app sales are, it seems like Apple is providing very significant value for that 30% cut of theirs

Yo ucant say whether it's apple giving that value, or other developers

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

#117

Post by 8note »

Retric wrote: post #79
rbecker wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps. It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is…

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…

Shouldn't the user get to decide whether an app gets access to the contacts API? I should not have to trust that apple is right in saying whether I want an app to have that access.

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

#118

Post by 8note »

Qwertious wrote: post #96
mlindner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

For 4. It's a dev target where the optimizations can be carefully tuned, so games can get more out of the hardware

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

#119

Post by 8note »

zigzag312 wrote: post #100
mlindner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wall…

I don't think the prices for games would change much.

Doing higher and higher resolutions makes the art work hard and harder, and the tool updates arent making a big difference

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

#120

Post by fakedang »

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.

I know a ton of poor people who use an iPhone, including a lot of wage workers at McDonald's. I also know a ton of rich people who won't use anything less dated than a Blackberry (including a lot of my former Wall street MDs).
Post reply on HN