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

Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#621

Post by glofish »

paxys wrote: post #382
glofish wrote: post #148

Epic had a golden goose here that printed money for them. Now they are shooting the goose because they want a bigger share of the egg. The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet. Instead of riding the wave they are getting off of it. Can people sell the goods that they buy from Epic? What will h…

People said exactly this when Epic picked (and won) a fight with Sony over crossplay on PS4.

to be honest with you, I'll be happy if either one of them wins. One of the unusual cases when I think both outcomes would bring about positive change.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#622

Post by just-ok »

croes wrote: post #459
notfried wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t need apps on my iPhone to do 100% of all things that apps can do. I am fine with some restrictions, so long as there’s enough reliability, consistency, privacy and security. If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores: 1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection…

So you are against a free market. Instead of multiple shops you want one megastore. Only one webshop: Amazon Only one Social Network: Facebook Only one search engine: Google Only one OS: Windows Only one chip manufacturer: Intel

To be fair it's perfectly possible to be against a free market in one scenario and for one in another.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#623

Post by smichel17 »

bobdole12345 wrote: post #570
sfifs wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly... The case is going to not about that. The case is going to be about Apple not allowing developers to tell their users that they can buy subscriptions and in-app goods for cheaper through alternative payment mechanisms where Apple cannot take a cut. Payments is what is this is about (also see the FB re…

Yeah, it's really unfair that the farmer got so angry when I was banging his daughter while staying at his house. I don't think I should have to listen to the farmers rules when he's got such a sweet daughter there.

I think this is a surprisingly good analogy. Let's make it explicit (now in two ways) -- the daughter here seems to represent iPhone owners.

So, getting to the crux of the disagreement -- the way you've stated it, fair enough. What about when the farmer is actually the owner and landlord of just over half the homes in the US? Assuming enthusiastic consent from the daughter to [play Fortnite], it's not so reasonable to require her to "just move into a property your dad doesn't own", especially if the 50% he owns make up the nicer half.

There's a bunch of other places you can take this analogy. I like Epic as a pickup artist here -- in it for their enjoyment, not any caring for the daughter. And some users (daughters?) have chosen to live on Dad's property precisely because he gets to keep the less savory types away, even if it means they have a more limited choice of partners.

At the end of the day, I'm personally against the farmer-baron (thus, temporarily and uneasily allied with the pickup artist). It's the daughter's body, and I believe she should be able to make her own choices. Partiarchy is one solution to unsavory suitors, but I don't think it's the best one.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#624

Post by greggman3 »

veilrap wrote: post #601
Aeolun wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I bought a $1000 device, but somehow Apple gets to decide what I run on it? I just cannot see how that is a desireable situation.

I bought a $1000 device because Apple gets to decide what can run on it. I like iOS, and I like that Apple provides a great user experience on the device. I was not in any way coerced into buying said device, and there are a plethora of other options for substitute devices had I wanted more control of what runs on the device, which I do not.

What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation?

Would you accept a house that only allowed furniture, food, books, electronics, devices from the company that built the house? Do you think it should be legal for a company to make a house with those conditions?

Would accept a car that could only take gas, tires, oil, electricity from the company that built the car? Should it be legal to offer such a vehicle?

You used to be able to buy a VCR and choose only to rent videos from Blockbuster video if you wanted "safe and clean". That didn't require any company making the VCR to force people to only to go their "safe and clean store". Apple doesn't need to force everyone on iOS to go to their store for you personally to continue to only get apps from their store.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#625

Post by nuker »

Consumers and developers have very different interests. Locked down system is good for consumers, not so much for developers. Many comments here commingle the two. I happily pay Apple premium because the app store rules protect my data from developers.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#626

Post by nodamage »

inopinatus wrote: post #577
Spivak wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple will do just fine arguing that their devices are no different from Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Roku, Cable Boxes, Keurig, Vzw feature phones. I would be extremely surprised if the courts just up and anti-Tivo’d every device on the planet. You try to make a case about how phones are somehow special but they’re really not. You have millions of people who only have an Xbox and so you can’t reach them unless you con…

If you recall, Microsoft got a punch in the nose for their abuse of market power, stuck with billion-dollar fines for it, then more similarly scaled fines when they tried to circumvent the ruling in 2013. They learned an important corporate lesson, which is why Xbox games can link to external subscription payment options. Apple have not yet learned this lesson.

Microsoft held significantly more market power at the time of their antitrust case (95%) than Apple currently does.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#627

Post by nodamage »

hakfoo wrote: post #544
mattmanser wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see how Epic wins this. If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple…

> Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple? But, at the end of the day, Walmart can't prevent customers from proceeding to Kroger down the street to get the products or deals they want. That's the market regulator of last resort in most circumstances. You say "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones or games". In the broad view, you may be right, but they've spent significant effort in cr…

> Is the only available counterweight for their behaviour "drop everything and buy a new $500 phone to express your discontent?"

No. The counterweight is not buying an iPhone in the first place if side loading is important to you.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#628

Post by hota_mazi »

Really interesting to study how macrumors.com loses all claims to objectivity when you read its wording with an editor's mindset:

> Shortly after Epic blatantly disregarded App Store policies

You don't need the adverb "blatantly" here.

You can just say "Epic disregarded App Store policies" and be able to claim to some reasonable objectivity. But as soon as you throw in "blatantly", you have clearly revealed yourself as a biased news source.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#629

Post by mr_toad »

Fezzik wrote: post #565
_qulr wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone is not a store. The App Store is a store. Epic wants to be on the iPhone, but not necessarily in the App Store. Ideally, Epic wants to run its own store on the iPhone. In any case, App Store is the only store in town, where the "town" is the 1.5 billion iOS users. If there's only 1 store, with no competing stores, that's an entirely different situation legally.

Think of the iPhone as a mall then - it still gets to pick its tenants by whatever criteria it sees fit (that are not illegal, and fees are not illegal). Epic is not winning this one. Edit: added the bit about fees.

The mall owner owns the mall. Apple doesn’t own the iPhones.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#630

Post by nodamage »

gnopgnip wrote: post #560
mattmanser wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see how Epic wins this. If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple…

This is like in Amazon sold a fridge and said you can only shop at Whole Foods. Epic wants users to be able to shop at stores other than Whole Foods, not to be carried at that store without a markup

The remedy in this scenario is to simply not buy Amazon fridges, not have the government step in and force Amazon to change its fridges. Legal intervention should not occur unless Amazon was the only fridge seller in the world.
Post reply on HN