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

Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 614 posts

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#161

Post by gpm »

kbenson wrote: post #159
pjmlp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes. You know, actual innovation.

> If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes. Creating a phone OS wouldn't actually let them compete on the same level, because you can't run anything but iOS on Apple hardware. The only companies that actually compete at the same level as Apple and Google and Amazon, since they both create the hardware, run an OS on it, and provide a store on it. Any while it'…

But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;)

I'm sure Apple will be thrilled with this line of reasoning and will definitely argue it (/s).

(In case it's not clear, I'm agreeing with the person I'm responding to, sarcasm over the internet is hard).

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#162

Post by raydev »

Traster wrote: post #30
jrockway wrote: post #3

Apple writes in their court filing: “Epic sought to enjoy all of the benefits of Apple’s iOS platform and related services while its ‘hotfix’ lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense.” It seems that Apple has forgotten that each iPhone user already paid Apple hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the iPhone itself. It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, jus…

> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for…

>> This license is free to use and incurs 5% royalties when you monetize your game or other interactive off-the-shelf product and your lifetime gross revenues from that product exceed $1,000,000 USD.

> And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing.

Apple takes 30% off all purchases upfront, and maybe they'll cut you a deal if you're Netflix-size.

On top of that, Apple's "quality control" allows through scam apps with scam IAPs, while they will reject your well-established app if you don't change the wording for your IAP copy for the second time in one year.

Or if you have no presence, they may well just reject you for not meeting the ambiguous minimum functionality requirements or for functionality they don't want users to have access to. After you've already paid them $99 for the privilege of being rejected, of course.

And then on top of that, Apple's "discovery mechanism" puts other people's ads above your app when people search specifically for the name of your app.

Epic, however, takes 5%..... after you pull in $1mil in revenue. That's it.

Do you really not see the glaring issue with your comparison here?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#163

Post by ecf »

bww wrote: post #120

This is a very bad look on Apple. Regardless of the enforceability of their agreements, the sense of entitlement that underlies Apple’s position is shocking. The claim that Epic has “lined [its] pockets at Apple’s expense” implies that Apple deserves to sit in the middle of every transaction that happens on their devices and take a margin. This is the world’s most valuable company we’re talking about here; assertions…

> Maybe next Toyota will decide that they deserve a percentage of Uber’s revenue because Toyota's cars help facilitate Uber’s business?

There are many car manufacturers that Uber could choose from in just the same way that there are many platforms that developers can develop for.

Stop trying to spread the idea that the ability to make apps for the iPhone is an inalienable right.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#164

Post by kbenson »

gpm wrote: post #161
kbenson wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes. Creating a phone OS wouldn't actually let them compete on the same level, because you can't run anything but iOS on Apple hardware. The only companies that actually compete at the same level as Apple and Google and Amazon, since they both create the hardware, run an OS on it, and provide a store on it. Any while it'…

But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;) I'm sure Apple will be thrilled with this line of reasoning and will definitely argue it (/s). (In case it's not clear, I'm agreeing with the person I'm responding to, sarcasm over the internet is hard).

> But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;)

Yep. That's the argument I've been making for a couple weeks now. Mainly, that Apple's actions are anti-competitive, even if they may not match the current definition of monopoly. If the harm is great enough though, then we should maybe think about extending the definition of monopoly or enacting some more specific laws restricting anti-competitive actions that match the modern market more accurately. It's not like the current laws from the the constitution, they were added in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

At a minimum, some consumer laws that protect us from people locking down hardware to specific software in some instances (and thus allowing competition on Apple hardware) may help in some small ways overall, even if it doesn't directly address the App Store and OS coupling. Being able to (legally) run Android (or something else) on an Apple phone would change quite a lot, IMO, even if it took a while to do so.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#165

Post by salawat »

gpm wrote: post #47
untog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"at Apple's expense" really surprised me in that statement, too. Certainly, Epic's move denied Apple money they would have earned, but "at their expense" makes it sound like Epic was going to bankrupt them.

I think from Apple's perspective here Epic's move did two things. It denied both Apple and Epic revenue by decreasing sales. It moved revenue from Apple to Epic by moving the commission on the sales that did happen from Apple to Epic. I believe this is what they're complaining about with the "lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense", i.e. they are arguing that they are entitled to that commission on the transactions…

Ah yes, the mythical "lost potential sale/revenue" quantum ogre. Truly the fiercest of courtroom opponents.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#166

Post by dwaite »

inopinatus wrote: post #127
mrkstu wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They prohibit the app, that is available from their store to advertise ways of bypassing that store. I'm pretty sure Walmart doesn't sell items in its stores that have text on the packaging about how to buy the item cheaper at Target, and it isn't particularly controversial that they do things that way. As far as I'm aware app's web pages or other communication medium aren't prohibited from advertising whatever they…

Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart…

> Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer?

You can indeed find terms for physical products that they can't do this.

If someone did this with Wal-Mart, I imagine the best the manufacturer could hope for is that Wal-Mart returns all 'defective' products on the manufacturer's dime.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#167

Post by kbenson »

parasubvert wrote: post #102
jclardy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.

arguably the whole reason for iOS’ success is that it is a service, and not just a passive piece of software. I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs. Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer. Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties. This is similar to the shift to clou…

> I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs.

We would never even be at the level we're at if there weren't those malware-plagued PCs and their open marketplace of software and operating systems competing with each other.

> Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer.

You mean Windows did, because A) it was the OS of the vast majority of desktop systems and B) they had a culture and practice of not taking security very seriously, or at least prioritizing so many things over it that the outcome was the same.

Apple's operating systems traditionally faced less scrutiny (but now there are more security problems since they are more popular). Windows has gotten much better and Microsoft appears to be much more serious about security (since it because a large enough problem to actually threaten their OS market dominance).

> Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties.

Not really my experience over the last 6-7 years. Prior to that, depending on OS, sure.

> This is similar to the shift to cloud computing. It’s more valuable to have a service take care of me than to have the freedom of licensed software .

To you, sure, but for the average person or company, it's variable and based on many things (capability, scale, etc).

> It’s also worth noting that software always has been considered a service in some sectors - enterprise software dating back to the 1970s for example required 21-25% of your purchase price in annual service & support fees with penalties if you terminate.

The enterprise doesn't really scale to the individual level we're talking about at all. An enterprise buying a specific computer with certain hardware with a custom OS delivered as a service is like a person buying some Tamagotchi toy and looking at it for 5 minutes a day for a week. Enterprises run anywhere from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of desktops and/or servers and any software as a service they pay for in that ecosystem is minuscule compared to the whole. Apple controls a non-negligible portion of most iPhone users compute time in one way or another (or multiple ways).

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#168

Post by manicdee »

raydev wrote: post #162
Traster wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for…

>> This license is free to use and incurs 5% royalties when you monetize your game or other interactive off-the-shelf product and your lifetime gross revenues from that product exceed $1,000,000 USD. > And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing. Apple takes 30% off all purchases upfront, and maybe they'll cut you a deal if you're Netflix-size. On top of that, Apple's "…

> Epic, however, takes 5%..... after you pull in $1mil in revenue. That's it.

That's it, for now. Epic is trying to set themselves up as publisher like Steam. Once they can get first-party status as an app store on iOS their tune will change.

This is about money, and one way to make money is to get people hooked on your product then jack up the price.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#169

Post by mcphage »

kevingadd wrote: post #75
rektide wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple on the other hand gets plenty of value from Epic. For example, 10 years ago, when Epic made the Citadel demo for Apple to show their smartphones could run games. Ground breaking R&D work, gratis for Apple, & legitimizing their devices. https://www.theverge.com/21405805/epic-citadel-2010-annivers... We'll see how much more bad blood Apple can make with developers before people start noticing & caring about the s…

If Unity and Unreal Engine disappeared from iOS you'd probably lose at least 50% of the games on that platform, if not more. Likely almost all of the top revenue-generating titles. People use middleware like UE and Unity to compensate for how difficult it is to ship games on Apple's platforms (along with others) instead of building for Apple's SDK. The citadel demo is the tip of the iceberg.

> to compensate for how difficult it is to ship games on Apple's platforms (along with others) instead of building for Apple's SDK.

Apple's SDK doesn't contain a game engine.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#170

Post by mcphage »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #128

The perfect outcome according to me will be that you could be required to pay apple tax if you use app store to distribute the app, but the user should have a way to install any app outside the store and apple has to provide user a way to let them install it. This will have far reaching consequence for many devices like consoles, home assistants etc. I believe we are simply giving control of the devices we own for no…

> The perfect outcome according to me will be that you could be required to pay apple tax if you use app store to distribute the app, but the user should have a way to install any app outside the store and apple has to provide user a way to let them install it.

Isn't that the current situation on Android, and Epic still sued them?

Post reply on HN