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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by danShumway »

katbyte wrote: post #778
danShumway wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to mention are you 100% sure those stores and your purchases will continue to exist longer than steam ect This is more of people complaining about DRM and acting like giving Steam a monopoly over the market is a solution. If you're worried about a company going under and you losing your purchases, the solution to that problem is to not tie game access to an account . People are looking at a clearly inferior sys…

well no, because let's say there is no DRM, and the store does go under, and then your computer explodes and you don't have the terrabyte of games you own backed up somewhere, your SOL at that point? Like while i trust sony to a degree i don't trust nintendo so all my switch games are hardcopy. I trust steam more then i trust EA/epic and thats on top of the not wanting to deal with multiple stores/ect.

Yes, if the store goes under, and you've never thought to buy a $50 terabyte drive to back up hundreds of dollars worth of games, and you never signed up for an online service like Backblaze that just uploads your entire computer including its program files, then you would have a problem. Presumably, at the point when the store went under and told you that it was no longer going to let you download your games, at that point you might have gone and backed up your games because you had advanced notice, but let's pretend you didn't.

Yes, if you ignored all of that you would have a problem, albeit in this case it would be a problem that was mostly your fault and not the fault of archaic US copyright laws. The point is that without DRM you at least have the option to be responsible and prevent this problem. With DRM, you don't have that option.

> I trust steam more then i trust EA/epic

:shrug: People trusted Kodak and Gamestop too. I'm not worried Steam is going to go under tomorrow, but if something happens where you start to get worried about Steam, tough. You can't do anything about that now. I hope you trust Steam because you don't have an option not to -- no matter what happens in the future or who retires or dies or takes over the company or how the market changes. Your game library is reliant on Steam being perpetually trustworthy for the rest of your life.

> and thats on top of the not wanting to deal with multiple stores/ect.

It's also important to note here that you wouldn't have to deal with multiple stores if you didn't have DRM. You could buy a game from Epic and use a separate client that you preferred to download it. The only reason you can't do that today is because the games are DRM-encumbered and Valve can't legally connect to Epic's servers with your credentials on your behalf and download and run those games for you without breaking the law.

This kind of 'adversarial operability' was commonplace in the computing world before it became legally tenuous for companies to offer those services. There is no reason other than copyright law and a misplaced fervor around the CFAA that Valve couldn't manage your Epic library for you.

> so all my switch games are hardcopy

Partially just a PSA here: there are good reasons to buy hardcopy games but if you haven't rooted your Switch and dumped those cartridges, then they're not actually backed up. You can have an extensive collection of 3DS games right now, but Nintendo doesn't sell a 3DS at this point. The Switch is going to be in an even worse position when it gets retired, because it's DRM-encumbered to the point that emulators won't work unless you dump files from your Switch that you own. You can't set up Yuzu (legally) unless you have a working Switch to get those files from, and Nintendo is definitely going to discontinue selling the Switch at some point.

This is one of the problems of DRM, and people's solution to this problem seems to be "well, I'll just pretend that this can never happen." In a DRM-free world, you can at least try to be responsible. You can take initiative to dump your saves so you don't lose hundreds of hours of Animal Crossing progress and Splatoon data when someone steals your Switch. In the current world you have to either root your console or just shrug your shoulders and try to remind yourself that nothing lasts forever.

This is also a problem that giving one console-maker a monopoly over the entire market would not solve.

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

#872

Post by summerlight »

I think the solution is pretty clear.

  * Platforms MUST display the amount of the processing fee taken from the payment in a clearly visible format inside of the app and/or the IAP flow.

  * Platforms MUST allow developers to implement alternative payment options (potentially cheaper due to lack of additional processing fee).

  * Platforms MUST allow advertisement of alternative payment options inside of the app and/or the IAP flow.

  * Platforms are allowed to reject apps if they think their alternative payment options are fraudulent but actionable feedback MUST be given within a reasonable time frame.

  * Platforms MUST provide a list of trusted payment alternatives which will be unconditionally approved during the app review process. To prevent cartel, the list MUST be periodically audited by FTC.
If the convenience from the integrated IAP can justify the 30% fee, the users will keep using it. If not, the price will be brought down. Let the market decide.

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

#873

Post by userbinator »

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…

It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy.

Don't forget that the market was pushed that way by Apple's highly influential marketing. People didn't really choose to give up their freedom of their own free will --- they were persuaded to, and only found out about the downsides afterwards.

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

#874

Post by ThatPlayer »

cmdli wrote: post #831
ThatPlayer wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire process falls apart if Apple is forced to allow other App Stores. Why? You have the choice of not using other App Stores. Just like you have the choice to not use Android, so therefore it doesn't effect you.

But it does affect me. Apple's "walled garden" approach only works if they are able to actually have walls and force companies to abide by their rules. Removing those restrictions removes any leverage Apple (and by extension consumers like me) have over other large companies. For example, Netflix could say "you have to use this other App Store" and many people would convert. It's essentially a tragedy of the commons.…

>Sure, it may not be fair to these large corporations, but it's currently a great situation for consumers.

Exactly, it is still anti-competitive behavior. Just because consumers like yourself may enjoy it, doesn't make it not anti-competitive.

> For example, Netflix could say "you have to use this other App Store" and many people would convert.

And in the same way that I can choose to not get iOS device, you can always choose to not use Netflix.

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

#875

Post by kevingadd »

pier25 wrote: post #242
kevingadd wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retroactively! It'd be one thing if it was up-front rejections, but the internet is full of horror stories from developers who suddenly found that Apple had decided their product was no longer okay and that their customers didn't matter, blocking future updates. Not even necessarily taking it off the store, just ensuring it can never get bug fixes.

> It'd be one thing if it was up-front rejections Well no because Apple needs to test the finished thing before it can decide whether it wants it or not.

Up-front as in your initial release is rejected, instead of a point-release a year later that only fixes a typo.

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

#876

Post by dsjoerg »

fbelzile wrote: post #635
Dracophoenix wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying Nintendo has an artificial monopoly by allowing only allowing Nintendo approved games to be distributed for sales on their consoles. Or TV channels have an artificial monopoly for shows they buy the syndication/distribution rights for. At some point, someone decided to commit to a certain path. Calling the choice "anti-competitive" cheapens the word. >>People who decided to purchase an iPhone with…

You're right that I'd classify those as artificial monopolies. Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if we had less of them? Especially for general computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples). We already know that Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success, just look at the Mac and macOS.

My house is an artificial monopoly. Only I get to decide who comes in. People come in only by choice. My guests and I having freely chosen to be together, in my place, abiding by my rules.

It's like that, except my house is very big and I'm Apple. Everyone, by their choice in accepting my invitation, have chosen to abide by my rules.

All guests are free to leave any time!

Now, what right does a 3rd party (the gov't) have to come in and crash my party and force me to change some of my rules? Consenting adults chose to be here!

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

#877

Post by ThatPlayer »

chrischen wrote: post #834
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.

There is a device that lets you install your own apps (more or less), and it is an Android device. No-one is forcing you to buy an Apple device nor does Apple even have a monopoly in marketshare of mobile devices. Some of the security and excellent user experience in fact comes from the enforcing and prevention of arbitrary third party apps. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want that experience g…

Similarly no one is forcing you to use third party apps. Apple can continue to enforce their App Store. And you can ignore the third party stores.

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

#878

Post by gretch »

userbinator wrote: post #873
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…

It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy. Don't forget that the market was pushed that way by Apple's highly influential marketing. People didn't really choose to give up their freedom of their own free will --- they were persuaded to, and only found out about the do…

Marketing isn't magic. You can't just take anything and sell it uphill.

If you could, why would anyone try to innovate on any level? Why are software engineers and product people paid more than marketing people at the same company?

Is Apple > Blackberry just because Apple had better marketing? Or Nokia?

On the other hand, if you have something genuinely desirable, then yeah marketing help people find that thing.

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

#879

Post by ThatPlayer »

jayd16 wrote: post #297
the_duke wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't the case on Android. I'd argue that it is till the case on Android. Yes, alternate stores are possible, but they are severely handicapped. First, manual APK install has to be enabled in obscure settings that come with a "scary" warning. Then they can't provide auto-updates but require a manual confirmation for each version update. Epic gave up on running their own store on Android due to the difficulties…

>Then they can't provide auto-updates but require a manual confirmation for each version update. Is this true? Did they change the install permission to one time use or something?

Yes. For example, F-Droid, the FOSS store requires a rooted phone to be able to install/update applications on it's own. Even itself.

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.fdroid.fdroid.privileged...

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

#880

Post by ThatPlayer »

yladiz wrote: post #559
colinmhayes wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what Epic's intentions are. Allowing creation of 3rd party stores is great and consumers and developers. I'll continue to support the organization whose incentives are aligned with mine.

I get why it's great for developers, but why for consumers? You'll almost have a situation exactly like the one that exists on Windows for gaming, where you have to install any number of stores to get the games that _only_ exist in those stores. You may think that it will give you or other consumers more choice, but it's a choice only for developers and it's at the expense of consumers.

Because I'm not limited by what the store decides they want to sell me. For example, there's no PornHub application on the Apple App Store. Similarly, Apple has been under fire recently for blocking streaming games, such as Microsoft's Xbox Cloud Streaming or Google Stadia even though it's functionally not different than Netflix's movie streaming, just with input. Or even blocking Steam's remote control Steam Link app from accessing the store: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/apple-reversal-allows...

Does them blocking those help me in any way? No, it is just to protect Apple's profits because they want to take a cut. You can't even pay for Netflix through the app, because Apple want their cut.

Post reply on HN