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

Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#801

Post by endless1234 »

valparaiso wrote: post #609
simion314 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sucks, but who is guilt for this, the giant publishers, why? because AppStores have a big tax , so competition that would lower the tax would solve the problem, Is same with video streaming, the giants don't want other giants to get a big cut without working hard. IMO , AppStore competition should be like web hosting, competition is large enough so you have enough choice to buy exactly what you want. Imagine if…

30% is one of the lowest fees in the market. Amazon's Twitch takes 50% fee. Also Tencent, who is behind Epic Games lawsuit takes 50% fee in China with their Android App Store.

>30% is one of the lowest fees in the market.

What? This is simply not true. If anything, 30% is the standard for app distribution. Steam, GOG, MS Store, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, Apple App Store & Google Play are all at 30%. If it's a lot or not is opinion.

>Amazon's Twitch takes 50% fee

Twitch is not an app store, it makes no difference to this discussion. It just happens to be higher than 30, so you mentioned it. For example patreon takes 8-12%, but that does not matter either.

>Also Tencent, who is behind Epic Games lawsuit

Tencent is not behind the Epic Games lawsuit.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#802

Post by mfost »

ericmay wrote: post #55
aboringusername wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on) How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right t…

> Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) > Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook) As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple. > That's the very definition of "competition" someth…

The ability to purchase a game on iPhone then use it on an Android next because I decided to change phones is invaluable for customers.

This is something I'm pretty sure Epic would provide with their own app store.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#803

Post by leadingthenet »

tommyage wrote: post #792

> We as legislators need to ensure that these platforms who act as gatekeepers in the digital market have to respect a predefined set of rules in order to guarantee fair competition and balanced market powers,” he said in a statement. One of these rules is (hopefully), if i purchase a hardware gadget, all of its capabilities are my possession. Restricting the access on purpose is frault. Epic's case is just a consequ…

Good God, just buy an Android. You people act like Apple’s shoving iPhones down your throat.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#804

Post by wernercd »

enos_feedler wrote: post #795
wernercd wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's also stifling innovation to be restricted to one store front. Imagine if all you had was Walmart, Target and KMart (iPhone, Android and Windows). "you can't build a new store because of all the R&D Walmart has put into their stores". You act like all the R&D isn't paid for with phone sales and development kits ($99/year). If you want to restrict the market? The price of that restriction should be regulation.

Actually, imagine if you were Walmart and you've spent the past 25 years investing in your brand, real-estate, parking lots, buildings, advertising, signage, etc. Your goal is to build a thriving business for _your_ customers. A fertilizer company isn't happy with the placement they are getting in your stores, so they sue you and say you need to give them dedicated, premium space in the parking lot. They also think i…

The difference is plenty of companies can make storefronts - look at Steam vs GOG and all the other options for gaming on Windows.

You act like companies wouldn't produce viable alternatives given the opportunity... and you act like Steam isn't better because of the competition.

Apple is putting forced restrictions on their platform because they want to squeeze everyone who comes through their doors. Apple acts like they are the only ones who can create a "brand, real-estate, parking lots, etc" when in reality, it can be done a lot better by any number of other companies - the only reason they can charge 30% is because of artificial restrictions put in place so... they can charge 30%.

Walmart doesn't want Target next door... because then they'll have to actually innovate to keep their customers.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#805

Post by crossroadsguy »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #677
thereddaikon wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you called it sideloading just shows how successful Apple has been in warping people's perception of it over the years. Installing the software you want on your compute device isn't sideloading. Its just installing software. Apple is aberration here not all of the users who just expect to actually own the products they buy.

It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation and use the think of my grandma (aka children) using iPhone situation. There could be numerous ways for Apple to let people run their own software or other stores without giving your grandma malware.

It's not that simple.

While I really would prefer the ability to install anything on my iOS device, I don't really want to do that. Not any more.

I like that TrueCaller on my iOS device works for most features without getting any permission from me, while on Android it refuses to buzz from the splash screen unless you give it every permission - including full contact access and phone.

I like that on iOS a famous payment app from India (PhonePe) works flawlessly with zero permissions but on Android? It needs both location and contacts to even function - neither of these are mandatory for their functioning but still they do and can get away with that.

You know WhatsApp doesn't let you use "Status" feature unless you provide Storage permission to it on Android (I doubt they need it just to shows those images, videos, and texts).

I tried Pixel 4a for sometime. The experience was nauseating. Everything from every corner was trying to jump into my face and distract me with this option, that option, that feature, that dark pattern. I found the right swipe quite nifty that shows you news and your daily calendar etc. So I first tried to find a way to only find the news source or types of news I could see - nope, no go! Then I disabled "Discover" and then it was just an empty white screen! I could literally not use that space for anything else. There was a button in the corner that I could tap once, and then it would show me daily calendar events. After one click! I couldn't set it to use the space which "discover" used to take. And mind it discover was just rage news stories.

And that calendar feature had a mind of its own - sometimes it would show the next 1 event, sometimes two I couldn't find a way to show day or week. I had the option to disable the entire right swipe feature.

I didn't want that clock on my home screen - no way to do that. Could I install another Launcher for all this? Yes, I could even though I didn't want to, but they came with other problems and limitations. I couldn't configure the keyboards to be more simple and remove all the settings from it.

Not to mention feature after feature getting disabled as I disable invasive permissions for features and apps.

It feels depressing to literally stare into a phone and see live and read - "you are the product, deal with it!"

And I was back to my iPhone with its pathetic battery life. So you see, Apple really has no competition and that's why they get away with things.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#806

Post by insert_coin »

greycol wrote: post #637
insert_coin wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to one's own work, to one's own mind outcome is arguably the only real right we can even pretend to have. What there is none is the "right" for governments to claim ownership to other's work and dictate you must do what your own free will tells you is not on your best interest, that is why they use force.

That is a clearly a semantic simplification. All rights are conditional, the "right to one's own work" is conditional on the "right of others work not to impede on one's own work". From this alone you can see the contradiction and realise that rights are a compromise of different interests. From there we're just arguing about who can wield what force to enforce what rights. Perhaps it's not in my best interest not to…

> "right of others work not to impede on one's own work"

That is not a right. As I said there is only one right, or only one that matters: the right to your own thoughts, to your mind's work, that is the work I was talking about.

Everything else is not a right, at least not if we are gonna be true to the word. If it's dependent on others is not a right. If it's conditional to other people's whims is not a right. If it needs the entire legal establishment and an army to enforce it is not a right. Rights in the constitution are not "rights" per se but obligations from the government to its citizens, as in you have the right* to procure it from the government, whatever it might be.

If you need to ask for permission is not a right.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#807

Post by MKinley »

pkulak wrote: post #708
elefanten wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-gua…

I've noticed that if something is possible, your children or grandmother with do it, somehow. I hand out Chromebooks to relatives because of the low support requirements, and yet STILL every time I get one of those things back there are dozens of outright dangerous extensions installed. These are folks who know how to click on the icon for their email and that's it, and yet the garbage finds a way in. It's like tryin…

I agree, and I believe this is in part because it is these kind of people that malware is targeted at. We, the tech savvy, will be smart enough to not do something because we pay attention at permissions or what extensions, programs, tools, etc are doing or want to do. The tech illiterate still do know how to use Google, search for what they want to do, click on the first thing that looks like it will do what they want, download and use it. If it doesn't do what they want, it remains there and they go and repeat these steps until they find exactly what program, etc does what they want, all while the bad ones remain installed, doing bad things.

My wife fell into this category when we first met, after I began teaching her even just some basics and she learned to question things and be more careful, I haven't needed to "diagnose" her computer in a long time (I still do regular maintenance, but irregular issues never come up anymore). So I would say that education is the biggest key in this regard, teach them to start with a zero trust model.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#808

Post by nine_k »

elefanten wrote: post #695
Dma54rhs wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation and use the think of my grandma (aka children) using iPhone situation. There could be numerous ways for Apple to let people run their own software or other stores without giving your grandma malware.

Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-gua…

There should not be a single switch to bulk-enable all third-party stores. It should be per store, with a bunch of authentication info from the store, likely coming from its TLS certificate.

It's the same situation as with "third-party" package stores in your favorite Linux distro. Say, on Ubuntu you add a particular PPA, you got to see its PGP signature, etc.

So in the Netflix case, it will be a Netflix store, secured by a DNS + TLS lookup, and limited to what Netflix has to offer.

But consider differently curated stores, some maybe even requiring a subscription fee to support the operation, discovering, checking, and maybe suggesting apps in different areas: from as wide as art apps or music creation apps, to as narrow as high-quality puzzle game apps. (Of course, an app might be available through more than one store.)

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#809

Post by ThatPlayer »

kingsleyopara wrote: post #761
joshuaissac wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would opening up app purchases on the iPhone to competition bring about the scenario that you describe? You gave an example with reckless driving and homicides but it is not clear how that applies to app store competition.

Lets assume Apple is forced to allow alternate app stores: I'm [insert big company e.g. Microsoft], why should I put [insert popular app e.g. Office] on the Apple App Store when I have to give 30% revenue and deal with Apple's privacy rules etc.? From now on if users want [insert popular app e.g. Office] on iOS they will have to download it from our store. All of a sudden every big company/popular app will have their…

Which is why it's good for competition: Now Apple App Store has to compete with other app's own stores for pricing. Otherwise what if Apple decided to start charging 50%? or 80%?

That's why this is an anti-trust suit, because Apple is stifling competition.

Re: Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

#810

Post by valparaiso »

hajile wrote: post #622
valparaiso wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How old are you? Have you ever asked yourself "why developers went to the new and empty Apple App Store in 2008 in mature market with Nokia and others"? The answer is very simple - commissions before Apple's 30% were 50%-70%. That's why Jobs conducted that presentation with slide regarding with 30% fee - it was unprecedent for those times. Also there is also another question - how did you calculate that 5-15% is reas…

They went to the platform because the iPhone was rapidly gaining popularity and they gained access to a captive market. Economies of scale alone indicates that if they could do the store at 30%, they could do it for far less when scaled up. Finally, they are rather near brick-and-mortar markups for a lot of things despite not having all the extra overhead.

> They went to the platform because the iPhone was rapidly gaining popularity and they gained access to a captive market.

So as Apple stated in court docs - it's symbiosis between company, developers and users. If iPhone were bad people wouldn't buy them and developers wouldn't create apps with bad conditions in economic terms.

> if they could do the store at 30%, they could do it for far less when scaled u

Since they aren't monopoly (court conclusion after TRO hearing and on and after preliminary hearing on September 28th 2020) and we are on free market there is no reason to discuss their fee. Moreover they didn't upped it. And never did from App Store launch in 2008, only lowered for subscriptions after 1 year from 30% to 15%.

Developers can stop learning Objective-C/Swift and switch to Android-whatever on their career start if they feel bad about industry-standard 30% fee. But developers won't because Apple's user base is paying money and not sideloading pirated versions like on Android.

Also business and investors don't care about Android, like Clubhouse - for start-ups only iOS matters on first years.

So what we see? Developers who make tenths of millions (Epic Games with Tencent) want free access for Apple's user (install) base for free. There is a word for this - parasitism.

Post reply on HN