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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by Wowfunhappy »

nmfisher wrote: post #896
africanboy wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hypothetical: if you modify the software in a Tesla, and your modification allows a hacker to remote control it, and this power is used to commit vehicular homicide, how much of the burden of responsibility do you have? Hypothetically: a friend borrows your car, but you didn't fix the break fluid leak, and he runs over someone. Who's at fault? > With regards to phones however, I explicitly want the devices heavily…

> Hypothetically: a friend borrows your car, but you didn't fix the break fluid leak, and he runs over someone. > Who's at fault? Legally the answer is crystal clear. If it was intentional? He is. Unintentional? You are. I don't really see the comparison.

But "criminal negligence" is a thing, right? Maybe you didn't intend for X to happen, but the law expects you to have known better.

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

#972

Post by xondono »

somjeed wrote: post #931
xondono wrote: post #930

I hope Epic loses in a spectacular way. At this point, if Apple is forced to allow third parties, I'll lose one of the best time savers I have in my life. Having switched all of my family and close relatives to Apple gives me the freedom of not having to provide almost any support. They are trained to use the platform (and its UI has been stable for years), and I can trust that they won't do anything too crazy just b…

umm, just use the Apple App store then... and let others have a choice

“Choice” is precisely the problem.

It’s not much of a choice when developers have all of the knowledge and users can’t even begin to understand how the apps work.

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

#973

Post by Dracophoenix »

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.

>>Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if we had less of them?

There would first need to be consensus as to what constitutes an artificial monopoly. So far the term has been used so nebulously as to encompass any choice or decision made with a tradeoff or constraint that somehow paid off for at least one but few, if any, others. In other words, "They cheated by holding onto a winning strategy / lottery ticket."

>>General computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples).

I fail to see the distinction. The Nintendo Switch is powered by the same SoC that runs on the Android-powered Nvidia Shield. Just recently, the Switch has been jailbroken to run full Android 10. The PS4, PS5, XB1, XBSX all run on x86-64 AMD chips (the former two on an in-house OpenBSD distro and the latter two on a full Windows 10 kernel). Even older consoles like the PS2 and N64 can run Linux (the former as an official feature and the latter as a recent homebrew development). In short, anything in console space has been a general computer for the last 20 years if not earlier. Constraints are imposed onto the hardware and software of these products as a natural consequence of certain physical limitations or by intentional design of their respective companies. Apple's products are, in general, no different.

>> We already know Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success.

What Apple needs to be a commercial success or not is a choice for Apple to make for itself. Apple chose a particular domain to succeed in and succeeded beyond almost every expectation. Absent fraud, it shouldn't be stopped from monetizing it's winnings any way it chooses just because you think the company has "over-succeeded". That on it's own doesn't make the App Store an "artificial monopoly" any more than it makes Usain Bolt "too good" to be allowed to compete in any more races. All of which leads me to question how exactly you are defining "artificial monopoly". What counts and what doesn't?

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

#974

Post by suifbwish »

saagarjha wrote: post #765
suifbwish wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing stopping you from rooting your iPhone and installing android on it. Problem solved. Now you can add all the spammerware you like.

Nothing except a hardware root of trust sealed by keys owned by Apple?

I suppose you want the raw source for all the proprietary software you buy as well?

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

#975

Post by suifbwish »

hacknat wrote: post #965
suifbwish wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just not sure why they should be forced to open a platform they made and own so other people who don’t own it can get what they want. If I sell property I don’t have to give mineral rights and the purchaser accepts that up front. Why should phones be any different. Should we force all software companies to give us the source code of their proprietary software that we buy? They sell us compiled versions of it whic…

The problem is it's not completely closed. It's open, but they control the only gate into the system. That's a monopolistic practice, very akin to owning all the railroads. Actually it's probably worse than that, because the railroads were only about the transport of goods and people. Most people do more on their phones than anything else. People literally have sex on their phones now, and control their important per…

I understand it sucks being so reliant on a 3rd party and entrenched in their system but I’m sure you understand that they can legally “sunset” the App Store as a project like Google loves doing and not allow any new software on the device at all. We can’t enter into a contract with a company and expect to get something other than what was in the agreement. Just because a large part of the population starts relying on a privately provided resource does not make it a public utility. Relying on 3rd parties always involves a risk that they will eventually decide to change whatever you are relying on. We all hopefully know and understand that before deciding to make it a mission critical part of a pipeline

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

#976

Post by suifbwish »

Karunamon wrote: post #885
suifbwish wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just not sure why they should be forced to open a platform they made and own so other people who don’t own it can get what they want. If I sell property I don’t have to give mineral rights and the purchaser accepts that up front. Why should phones be any different. Should we force all software companies to give us the source code of their proprietary software that we buy? They sell us compiled versions of it whic…

I'm just not sure why I should be forced to accept restrictions on hardware I bought and paid for.

Unfortunately, unless they told you that you would be receiving something they did not give you before you made the purchase, you are entirely responsible for the fact you have a piece of restricted hardware. Why buy something you know you aren’t going to like?

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

#977

Post by NoPicklez »

dubcanada wrote: post #184

I can hardly wait to use Amazon App Store to install Amazon and then open up the Epic Game Store to install random game and then open up EA Game Store to install random game and then open up Facebook App Store to install Facebook and then open up the Apple App Store to install the Blizzard App Store to install Hearthstone and then go back to the Apple App Store and update the Blizzard App Store so I can get the lates…

I've been there too, always used Steam to install the majority of the games I played. Then EA decided to only release Battlefield on Origin, then Ubisoft decided you also needed to install their launcher, now we also have the Epic Games launcher and the Blizzard Launcher (warranted they always had this).

Between each of these launchers they have their own chat platforms, I need to duplicate my friends list between them all and they each have their pros and cons.

It's not great and its frustrating. Clearly Steam had a fantastic solution and was ahead of its time in terms of digital distribution of content.

Why can't we move to a solution like brick and mortar stores where every game is made available at every online store? Then I can choose where I want to download the game from.

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

#978

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

reader_mode wrote: post #954
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is short-sighted. The App Store is good because it is closed and curated. That's a main driver of the product experience. Removing the App Store irrecoverably damages the iPhone - a curated, non-malware infested, high quality phone with a consistent experience. I have yet to see any argument how the App Store harms consumers. It helps developers make more money (Play Store revenue is half that of the App store's…

Lol the framing is ridiculous - Apple had nothing against ripping off gambling kids as long as they were getting their 30% cut so please cut the fanboy crap. Apple is using it's market position and it's leading to inefficient pricing. I guarantee you if Apple was forced to allow other payment methods on their store that their % cut would go down because the convenience they offer is not worth 30%. And App Store can b…

Not an apple fanboy, please argue on merit, else I won't continue.

Apple isn't ripping off anyone. They're taking their cut of sales based off the value of providing access to a high paying market that has a non-negligible cost. The point is - Epic is not doing this "for the market." They're doing it because they want more money for themselves - which is fair, but they are using a service which provides them revenue. That should not be free. For that matter, they have a monopoly over their store as well - should they have to allow third party "VBucks" stores? It's absurd.

> Apple is using it's market position.....

It clearly is worth that, in fact, probably much more - others on this thread that support your POV have said the App Store generates twice the revenue of Android. It's not just the convenience - it simply makes devs more money. Cutting the app store will tank developer value instantly. Developers will lose big time in this event. There will be many on here that will begin to complain as their salary dips. Also apple already cut the fee for smaller apps. So what's the real problem? I have yet to see any tangible evidence of consumer harm.

> And App Store can be as curated.....

That opens the door for malware and a poor customer experience. I can see my mom now being tricked into downloading a privacy invading app. my dad's android is a nightmare. It destroys the product.

> I generally agree that you have the device choice....

There isn't market inefficiency. It's hard to argue monopoly of a company that has 20% of the market. The IE/Windows debate is far different. Both DOMINATED the market. This simply isn't true in this case.

The fact is every time this comes up on HN people just hate Apple, but never look at the actual merit of the arguments. It isn't a monopoly (less than 20% global marketshare), its fees aren't exorbitant based on the value it provides developers, and end consumers get a clean, relatively safe experience. No one is losing, except megacorps like Epic who want to make a little more money.

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

#979

Post by Daho0n »

rgbrenner wrote: post #796
Daho0n wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter how many times it gets repeated it doesn't make it true: Market share is irrelevant. You can abuse your market position at both 15 and 50% market share. A few tiny companies working together to fix prices is still illegal and punished no matter if they together are only a tiny fraction of the market. Apple is abusing it's position, no doubt about it. If you doubt install another app store or avoid the 30% t…

Market share is relevant if they're going to be prosecuted for the same thing Microsoft was prosecuted for: abusing their monopoly power. Anchor v Rule: although market share does not alone determine monopoly power, market share is perhaps the most important factor to consider in determining the presence or absence of monopoly power Weiss v York Hospital: A primary criterion used to assess the existence of monopoly p…

You can't really compare the US to the EU though and this isn't going to the US supreme court.

You don't need to be successful in stifling competition to be anticompetitive so market share enough to be a "real" monopoly is likely irrelevant. Trying to abuse your position is enough as Google felt with Google shopping and Android. "Capable of having, or likely to have, anticompetitive effects". In Android, "it is sufficient that the conduct tends to restrict competition or is capable of having that effect".

In my opinion Apple is going to be hit hard in the EU. Fans of Apple always roll out the old "but the app store is much more profitable" which is a truth that will IMO come back to bite Apple when refusing others fair access and thereby "restrict competition".

>that's just more evidence of my point that Apple and Microsoft are different situations and aren't comparable.

I agree they are very different and not comparable.

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

#980

Post by pier25 »

kevingadd wrote: post #875
pier25 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What I'm arguing is that both are just as bad.
Post reply on HN