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

Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 468 posts

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#381

Post by doikor »

throwaway473825 wrote: post #260
doikor wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make more money. More is more even if it is not making their most important thing make more money. Just like Apple has not killed most of their desktop offering just because they are not a very significant part of their income. Also a big chunk of it is probably just Tim Sweeneys personal opinions (he owns over 50% epic by himself so what he says happens pretty much). Basically he is rather strongly (and very open…

> Basically he is rather strongly (and very openly) against any walled garden platforms. Is that why he doesn't support the only real open platform on the desktop?

From his perspective Windows and Linux are equally open in that he can have his own marketplace in each.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#382

Post by boomboomsubban »

mattzito wrote: post #242
boomboomsubban wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appealing a court decision still counts as "playing by the rules." Disagreeing about what the rules should be shouldn't count as a violation of the rules by itself.

Disagreeing about the rules is not a violation of those rules, I agree. But it is a statement of intent that you plan to not follow the rules if you win your court case, which means...you won't be playing by the rules. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that Apple wouldn't want to give Epic access to their user base back while Epic is trying to reverse the decision. Now, if Epic was not appealing, and Apple refused to…

>which means...you won't be playing by the rules

No, it means the rules will be changed.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#383

Post by vbezhenar »

kerng wrote: post #298
rdsnsca wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge did say Apple has a right to collect a commission , but did't rule if 30 % was fair. "First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collec…

yeah, reasonable commmission seems like 2-4 percent here. I don't think consumers should have to pay more for it. And most important, apps should have no restrictions whatsover to have payments inside their own app ecosystem!

Commission does not matter. It could be 300%. What matters is whether users can use another method of payment without artificial difficulties. If I can press "Apple Pay" and pay $120 or I can press "Paypal" and pay $40, I'd choose Paypal. If it would be $41 vs $40, I'll consider Apple. But that's me. Some people surely value Apple services more than me. So when competition is allowed, Apple will be able to price their commission competitively.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#384

Post by smoldesu »

stephenr wrote: post #282
kllrnohj wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users Of course they are, that's Apple's standard business relationship practice. See also why Mac's still don't have an Nvidia GPU option, because Apple & Nvidia got in some spat a decade ago and Apple has been holding a grudge ever since. The more Apple brings stuff in-house the less this matters to the bottom line, but it…

s/got in a spat/had years of repeated customer issues because of GPUs shitting the bed/

In no way thanks to Apple's insistence on using weak solder and forcing the device to be as thin as possible. I've heard people argue this up and down the street, but I have a hard time believing it when most Windows/Linux devices have no problem managing their thermals in a way that doesn't destroy their hardware.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#385

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

snvzz wrote: post #379
kllrnohj wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users Of course they are, that's Apple's standard business relationship practice. See also why Mac's still don't have an Nvidia GPU option, because Apple & Nvidia got in some spat a decade ago and Apple has been holding a grudge ever since. The more Apple brings stuff in-house the less this matters to the bottom line, but it…

NVIDIA is well hated by the industry. They tend to screw their partners. They're also very aggressive with litigation. I am not surprised Apple hates their guts, too.

Yes, but we are talking about the interests of users here. The idea that apple would prevent Nvidia GPUs from being used with their machines is further to the point of Apple putting its grudges ahead of the interests of their customers.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#386

Post by michaelbrave »

kllrnohj wrote: post #246
mattcantstop wrote: post #193

I understand Apple's decision to do this. They want to stick it to Epic. Completely understandable desire on Apple's part. But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users in having all the games they want to play on their devices. I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been waning over the years after having invested heavily in the ecosystem. This is…

> But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users Of course they are, that's Apple's standard business relationship practice. See also why Mac's still don't have an Nvidia GPU option, because Apple & Nvidia got in some spat a decade ago and Apple has been holding a grudge ever since. The more Apple brings stuff in-house the less this matters to the bottom line, but it…

The main reason flash was killed by Apple was also spite toward Adobe, they made valid excuses sure, but spite was the driving force

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#387

Post by MomoXenosaga »

BeefWellington wrote: post #131
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. We know an open market lowers prices for consumers.

Do we? As I saw it, Epic's initial actions here were basically over the percentage of the pie they get to take, not reducing the size of the pie.

Yes we do, it is one of the guiding principles of free markets. But the US is going into a direction of giant all powerful corporations smothering any competition.

People love Apple I know but if other companies start doing this hopefully they'll reconsider.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#388

Post by takeda »

tdeck wrote: post #377
kllrnohj wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, inadequate cooling caused the BGA to pop free, with the recall "fix" being to just add some rubber to smash it down. iirc Apple tried to blame Nvidia for it and Nvidia didn't take it, blaming instead Apple's design. Since then Apple has repeatedly had inadequate cooling and power delivery issues, just typically resulting in throttling instead of recalls. Sooo Nvidia was probably accurate and it was Apple's faul…

Apple has a long history of inadequate cooling, ostensibly because Steve Jobs hated fans. The apple II overheated, the apple III famously overheated (causing the motherboard to warp and chips to pop out), the original macintosh had no fan either. For decades there was a suite of aftermarket fans for Apple computers, although that's less practical with a laptop.

> apple III famously overheated

it was so reliable it failed 100% times :)

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#390

Post by etchalon »

eldaisfish wrote: post #338
sbuk wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge literally just ruled that it wasn't.

.. based on precedents where none of them were digital. Every single precedent cited in this judgement pre-internet.

Laws aren't different because "digital".
Post reply on HN