Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#61

Post by drusepth » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

trboyden wrote: post #55

slver wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?

Except what you state already exists. I can load the Walmart app on iOS and order a TV from Walmart, not Apple. Apple is preventing Epic from doing the same - buy in-app merchandise through Epic's app on iOS.

Can you buy any digital goods on iOS with the Walmart app?

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#62

Post by nradov » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

adam_arthur wrote: post #30

slver wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?

I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again, there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at a market rate. You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competitio…

You can buy a new unlocked Samsung smartphone for $180. That's hardly cost prohibitive. Especially if you already have an iPhone you can just sell it and buy something else.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#63

Post by ec109685 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #34

Remember that when the iPhone was launched there was no app store. All you could do was 'install' a web app. Now we have progressive web apps with full offline functionality, but installing them is a nightmare. You have to dig through the share menu from Safari (tough luck if you use another browser) to install one, and Apple removes it after some time limit. Maybe a half measure would be to make that process less re…

Push notifications also don't work with web apps. Totally hamstrung platform.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#64

Post by mcphage » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:30 PM UTC

Moto7451 wrote: post #60

jmole wrote: post #39

I can buy a book directly on the Amazon iOS app, but I can't buy an ebook. That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.

One bit of context to add: Amazon opted out selling ebooks one the app due to the the 30% fee imposed on purchasing in app/digital goods. They’re not disallowed from selling ebooks. I mention this because it’s both an important distinction and the same subject as Epic’s lawsuit.

Along the same lines, Comixology removed their ability to buy issues in-app when Amazon bought the company.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#65

Post by baron816 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

It should just be like on Mac—you can go through the App Store, or you can download directly, but with a warning.

I think that would be killer argument for Epic—Apple already allows you to download apps onto their devices that don’t go through their store and everything is fine.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#66

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

adam_arthur wrote: post #30

slver wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?

I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again, there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at a market rate. You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competitio…

[deleted]

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#67

Post by crenwick » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

jmole wrote: post #39

I can buy a book directly on the Amazon iOS app, but I can't buy an ebook. That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.

I agree that it's a fundamental problem and anticompetitive behavior but I don't think it's as clear of a court case as this Epic v Apple.

Users don't need to install the Amazon iOS app, instead they can use Safari where they can buy books and ebooks directly.

Games like the ones Epic makes, however, cannot run in Safari. They are forced to go through Apple store and play by Apple's rules.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#68

Post by fooey » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

slver wrote: post #4

causality0 wrote: post #2

I really hope the concept of "you can't be anti-competitive if you own the entire ecosystem" dies.

The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?

The closest comparable platforms are probably the consoles. Should Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo be forced to allow 3rd party app stores on their devices?

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#69

Post by nradov » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

fxtentacle wrote: post #17

slver wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. Maybe think through what you're proposing. Do you believe most of Epic's customers will buy two phones, charge two phones and carry two phones just so they can play their games, while also having access to first-class OS services like Google and Apple offer? No.

All the services that I rely upon on my Android phone are free 3rd party apps. Firefox, Banking, Authentication, Calendar So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.

Those APKs will only work on devices with licensed Google Play services. And that platform changes so rapidly that it's effectively impossible for a competitor to build compatible APIs without infringing on Google's IP.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#70

Post by mason55 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

> Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store.

The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible.

You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.