Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#71

Post by simonh » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #50

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…

They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging fo…

So if stores don’t provide any utility over side loading, how come Epic gave up on relying on side loading on Android, which allows it, and ended up on the Play Store? It’s literally that exact scenario.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#72

Post by spullara » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #50

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…

They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging fo…

The equivalent is the iPhone SDK and developer tools for it. Not the store.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#73

Post by tw04 » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #50

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…

They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging fo…

>A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. A game produced with the Unreal Engine could just as easily be created through a natively developed engine or another licensed engine instead of Unreal. Unity, for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_(game_engine)

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#74

Post by parasubvert » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #32

samatman wrote: post #26

I look forward to Epic's next set of suits against Sony and Microsoft, who offer basically identical terms for inclusion on the app platforms for Playstation and Xbox, respectively.

Yeah, I saw this counter argument before, and I wonder the same thing, but does intellectual consistency matter much in the court of law?

It does if you’re about to declare things that have existed for decades with no problem as suddenly Anticompetitive or illegal.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#75

Post by kevingadd » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

rektide wrote: post #60

loktarogar wrote: post #42

> it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store. Half true. EPIC doesn't really get any value from the App Store except data delivery, which they're more than willing to do themselves. Fortnite is popular enough that the app discovery part of the store is meaningless.

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.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#76

Post by Traster » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

inopinatus wrote: post #54

Traster wrote: post #44

The thing that really annoys me about this entire argument is that the principal of the thing isn't really controversial. Apple provides a tonne of services (SDKs, marketplace, payment processing) that other people also provide and also charge for. It's not that controversial - in fact, Epic's Unreal Engine has the exact same revenue share terms as Apple. The only thing that's really controversial here is that 30% is…

Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive. The legal controversy is that Apple prohibit apps from advertising, linking to, or even mentioning that external account management/payment/service sign-up options are available. This forces vendors to become complicit in misleading the consumer about their options, an anti-competitive p…

Do you think that I can put "Cheaper on www.mysite.com" in my amazon description? Why would it be controversial to prohibit someone from advertising a competing service on your platform?

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#77

Post by acomjean » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

I think one big thing is that Fortnite is no longer available on iOS devices. I didn't think it was a big deal, how many people game on iOS?

But the little people in my life are missing the corporate synergy of Marvel and Fortnite for the new season. This makes just having iOS devices in your world less palatable and teaches a valuable lesson on walled gardens.

Saddly Fortnite is one of the rare games that is cross platform online playable. It took their weight to make that happen.

Wish Epic would work to make linux a more viable native gaming platform now (steam does a lot of work with Proton, but I think native might be better...).

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#78

Post by kevingadd » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #71

beaner wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging fo…

So if stores don’t provide any utility over side loading, how come Epic gave up on relying on side loading on Android, which allows it, and ended up on the Play Store? It’s literally that exact scenario.

So that when a teenager types "fortnite" in on their phone they can install it. That's the only reason. It's a little different from organic "discovery", like search and recommendations.

FWIW, Google (illegally? according to Epic, anyway) blocked Epic's attempts to address this through partner deals with phone manufacturers, so their hand was relatively forced.

If Google and Apple didn't require all installs to go through a blessed path, people would just type "fortnite" into their search engine of choice and install that way instead. Of course, Google & Apple have good reason for not allowing that, but in the case of Fortnite they really are not delivering much for the 30%.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#79

Post by parasubvert » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

wayneftw wrote: post #45

samatman wrote: post #26

I look forward to Epic's next set of suits against Sony and Microsoft, who offer basically identical terms for inclusion on the app platforms for Playstation and Xbox, respectively.

I look forward to hearing an argument about how game consoles are nearly as important to society or as ubiquitous, as smart phones.

Ticketmaster for concerts

Scientific journals

Vehicle firmware and apps

The list goes on.

Apple’s policies aren’t monopoly by any historic definition: it’s complaining about commission rates, not about blocking market access, since you always can just pick a different platform.

Unless iOS and Android needs to be declared a public utility.

Re: Apple countersues Epic, seeks punitive damages

#80

Post by simonh » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #70

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…

The customer is the product isn't just limited to advertising companies. It follows naturally that Apple considers you their property and believes they can control others doing business with you. Which, in fact, they can-- if you use their products. There is, however, a straightforward way to stop them: Don't use their products.

The other way to look at it is that I as a user hire Apple to vet and QA the apps released for iOS and manage my relationship with all those developers on my behalf. That’s the deal I knowingly enter into when I buy an iPhone and I’m quite happy with it.

If others aren’t happy with it that’s fine too, just get a different phone. I don’t see any justification for coercing Apple into entering into commercial arrangements and developing product features they don’t want to support.