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

Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#11

Post by zamalek »

sombremesa wrote: post #10
zamalek wrote: post #9

If this is true then Epic should definitely be punished. The mechanism by which this has been brought to widespread scrutiny doesn't indemnify Apple, either. The idea that Apple should have app store monopolization written into law (their words) because of the tactics Epic used is ridiculous.

A monopoly is not objectively a bad thing, just like debt is not objectively a bad thing. Else we should abolish the patent office.

Patents have an expiry date because the patent office agrees that monopolies are bad. The purpose of a patent is to allow an inventor to establish their market, not to establish a monopoly.

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#12

Post by curryst »

zamalek wrote: post #9

If this is true then Epic should definitely be punished. The mechanism by which this has been brought to widespread scrutiny doesn't indemnify Apple, either. The idea that Apple should have app store monopolization written into law (their words) because of the tactics Epic used is ridiculous.

I don't really see why. Epic has to show harm to have standing for a lawsuit, so there was always going to be some planning in terms of "when do we do this so Apple shuts it down so we can sue".

Apple is also very good at PR. I don't think it's particularly malicious to try to get out ahead of Apple's PR department. The "Small Business Program" was a brilliant bit of PR on Apple's part, that does indeed try to undermine Epic's case from a public perception standpoint.

I'm not enthused that this is how things get done, but I take Epic's actions as a symptom of a flawed system rather than some kind of character flaw in the company.

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#13

Post by SllX »

cforrester wrote: post #6
SllX wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their lock-in amounts to “be more appealing in some ways”. Is there anything you couldn’t replace switching from your platform of choice to a different one? I have a lot of 3rd party software it would be difficult to replace and it would be a quality of life hit, but software is software, I could replace what they do with something else if I was forced to.

You said it yourself, switching would be a complication, and manufacturers are happy to maximize that complication as much as possible. I consider it unethical to impose artificial hurdles to switching upon consumers, especially when they most likely aren't familiar with vendor lock-in. iMessage is a good example for me. It replaces a federated, universally-compatible service with a centralized service that works onl…

> You said it yourself, switching would be a complication, and manufacturers are happy to maximize that complication as much as possible.

Actually I said it would be a quality of life hit. I’m convinced that what I use are already the best choices, so switching to something else would feel like a quality of life hit. Bet you I’m not the only one that uses something just because I like it the most.

It would also be a complication, but for me, personally? Somewhere between a day and a weekend to bootstrap and I would replace things as I go. Actually I’ve done this at a few points in my life.

I feel your pain on the multi-protocol front. I used to be a heavy user of Adium, but at some point that wasn’t sustainable. Sticking mostly with iMessage does feel like a quality of life downgrade in many ways, but it’s also an upgrade in a few other ways, so call it it a wash? Sidegrade maybe?

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#14

Post by SllX »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #7
SllX wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their lock-in amounts to “be more appealing in some ways”. Is there anything you couldn’t replace switching from your platform of choice to a different one? I have a lot of 3rd party software it would be difficult to replace and it would be a quality of life hit, but software is software, I could replace what they do with something else if I was forced to.

Usually vendor lock-in actually amounts to "smart and well paid people think of clever, evil, but technically legal ways to make it as difficult as possible to leave the ecosystem".

Yes, but is it actually all that difficult to switch between two vendors? Mac and Windows? Windows and Linux? Android and iPhone?

It’s some work, it isn’t that much work. You would be surprised at all the things people don’t care if they lose.

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#15

Post by [deleted] »

curryst wrote: post #12
zamalek wrote: post #9

If this is true then Epic should definitely be punished. The mechanism by which this has been brought to widespread scrutiny doesn't indemnify Apple, either. The idea that Apple should have app store monopolization written into law (their words) because of the tactics Epic used is ridiculous.

I don't really see why. Epic has to show harm to have standing for a lawsuit, so there was always going to be some planning in terms of "when do we do this so Apple shuts it down so we can sue". Apple is also very good at PR. I don't think it's particularly malicious to try to get out ahead of Apple's PR department. The "Small Business Program" was a brilliant bit of PR on Apple's part, that does indeed try to underm…

[deleted]

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#16

Post by nmfisher »

sombremesa wrote: post #10
zamalek wrote: post #9

If this is true then Epic should definitely be punished. The mechanism by which this has been brought to widespread scrutiny doesn't indemnify Apple, either. The idea that Apple should have app store monopolization written into law (their words) because of the tactics Epic used is ridiculous.

A monopoly is not objectively a bad thing, just like debt is not objectively a bad thing. Else we should abolish the patent office.

> Else we should abolish the patent office.

Where do I sign?

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#17

Post by salamandersauce »

SllX wrote: post #14
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually vendor lock-in actually amounts to "smart and well paid people think of clever, evil, but technically legal ways to make it as difficult as possible to leave the ecosystem".

Yes, but is it actually all that difficult to switch between two vendors? Mac and Windows? Windows and Linux? Android and iPhone? It’s some work, it isn’t that much work. You would be surprised at all the things people don’t care if they lose.

It's not just the work. Money is a factor too. Accessories as well. The Apple Watch needs an iPhone to work for example, dongles, cables, software. Even stuff that works on multiple platforms may not work as well or be limited on others (e.g. Airpods) so you have to decide is it worth switching to lose X and gain Y?

I think a lot of people don't care once they switch, but thinking about switching, the costs etc. makes it seem daunting and not worth it.

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#18

Post by salamandersauce »

sjtindell wrote: post #3

I strongly dislike this argument against modern tech companies that they are anticompetitive for not supporting other marketplaces. It feels to me like suing a Chinese restaurant and saying they don’t offer other menus. It’s tough because Google and others are huge, they buy out competitors, it’s not anything like the restaurant market. But this particular argument is so weak imo.

I bought the Chinese food so why can't I put chocolate sauce on the rice if I want? Because the owner of the restaurant says no?

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#19

Post by SubjectToChange »

zamalek wrote: post #9

If this is true then Epic should definitely be punished. The mechanism by which this has been brought to widespread scrutiny doesn't indemnify Apple, either. The idea that Apple should have app store monopolization written into law (their words) because of the tactics Epic used is ridiculous.

Why on earth is planning a lawsuit bad? Impulsive, knee-jerk lawsuits should be punished, not the other way around.

Re: Epic Games Began Planning 'Project Liberty' Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago

#20

Post by DowsingSpoon »

salamandersauce wrote: post #18
sjtindell wrote: post #3

I strongly dislike this argument against modern tech companies that they are anticompetitive for not supporting other marketplaces. It feels to me like suing a Chinese restaurant and saying they don’t offer other menus. It’s tough because Google and others are huge, they buy out competitors, it’s not anything like the restaurant market. But this particular argument is so weak imo.

I bought the Chinese food so why can't I put chocolate sauce on the rice if I want? Because the owner of the restaurant says no?

What an excellent analogy! You can’t put chocolate sauce on the rice you bought because outside food and drink are always prohibited. You’ll be politely, but firmly, asked to leave. So, in a word, yes, because the owner of the restaurant says no.
Post reply on HN