10 ms·

Usually when you fire a customer they can go to one of your competitors. This just proves Epic's argument. There is no competing App Store on iOS because it's n

by mantap 6y ago

Usually when you fire a customer they can go to one of your competitors. This just proves Epic's argument. There is no competing App Store on iOS because it's not allowed. If Apple "fires" you then your users can no longer install the app onto their own phones. Imagine if Microsoft "fired" Adobe and as a result nobody could install Photoshop on Windows anymore.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
giovannibajo1 6y ago
Fortnite is available on several different game consoles and platforms (most of which, by the way, have a 30% commission fee). It used to be the case that it wasn’t available on iOS, and it was a planetary success already. Customers that had a iOS device and absolutely wanted Fortnite had to resort to use another platform, eg. buy a PC or a PlayStation. Now we’re back on the situations where we were before: Fortnite won’t be available on the iOS platform (like it’s not available for others), and customers will have to play it in other platforms. I’m not sure how this shows a monopoly. On the contrary, I think it will be hard for Epic to prove that Apple has a “monopolistic power” on Fortnite distribution when they got billionaires through it even before it was ported to iOS. EDIT: downvotes on HN for stating an opinion?
- woofie11 6y ago
  Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly.
  - baddox 6y ago
    Okay, then since we've failed to argue that Apple is a monopoly, what's the next antitrust argument, and how does it apple to iPhones but not to game consoles (which have the same if not stricter restrictions to third-party software developers)?
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Game consoles are toys, smartphones are an integral part of people's lives and livelihoods.
      - baddox 6y ago
        That's a very flimsy definition of the difference. Game consoles are generally much more powerful general-purpose PCs that can do everything an iPhone can do (except connecting to cell networks). They tend to be full multimedia consumption devices and can also manage other electronics in your home (lights, security cameras, etc.). Any supposed benefit iPhone owners would gain from being able to run unsigned code would also apply to console owners.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        True, but your Tesla has a super-powerful general purpose computer in it that connects to cell networks, and is likely way more powerful. Nobody's going to argue a Tesla is a PC.
        baddox 6y ago
        I'm curious how someone could argue that Apple's App Store rules are anticompetitve and that they should be forced to change them, while also arguing that the same doesn't apply to Tesla's media computer(s). Is it just because there are more iPhones than Teslas?
        arcticbull 6y ago
        FWIW I personally don't. However, I see the argument to be made that in selling a Mac or an iPhone, you're being sold a general-purpose computing device with explicit value added by third-party software vendors. Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. When you bought a Tesla, that wasn't how the car was represented to you. It's purpose is to drive, and yeah it's got a sweet big screen that happens to run apps, but that's ancillary. Legally, I think that matters. From a free-software perspective, I agree, I would also like to run whatever I want on my car.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly. Yes, it does. https://www.justice.gov/atr/monopoly-power-and-market-power-antitrust-law https://www.justice.gov/atr/monopoly-power-and-market-power-...
    - woofie11 6y ago
      Did you read the link you just posted? Seriously. It clearly states what I said, and contradicts what you said. As per YOUR LINK, you don't need a monopoly for antitrust; just "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market." Apple unambiguously has this with their app store.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        Not all antitrust violations require monopoly power, that is true. For example, price fixing is illegal even if the companies involved do not have monopoly power. However, several of the claims Epic made in their lawsuit do require proving that Apple has monopoly power, which is going to be a difficult argument with their current 46% market share.
        woofie11 6y ago
        Which ones? I only skimmed the case, but it looked like market power would suffice. In either case, the standard legal approach is to throw the kitchen sink of claims, to see which ones stick. Most claims get rejected by the courts, but if you have a few that work, it's enough. It also helps settle. If I have a dozen $10 million dollar claims, with a 5% chance of success each, a rational opponent will throw me $6 million to go away. If the parties settle, the kitchen sink approach is not a bad one to get a better settlement.
        nodamage 6y ago
        The claims of "unlawful monopoly maintenance" in particular. But you're right, I think their best chance of success is the tying claim between "iOS App Distribution" and "iOS In-App Payment Processing" which only requires market power. I don't think Epic cares to settle here though, they have more than enough money to keep this suit going for the next decade.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Holy s* this is a surreal comment to read on Hacker News. Once upon a time we believed in general-purpose computing devices that allowed users -- their owners! -- to run whatever software they pleased. Now you speak of "platforms" that charge a tax in return for preventing users from installing software -- on their own devices they actually literally own, mind. Can you imagine if your car would only operate on roads approved by Ford?
  - krrrh 6y ago
    I believe in general purpose computers, I see them every day and I know they exist. I also believe in choice and experimentation when it comes to business models. If I want to buy some systems with trade offs and benefits that don’t always include being able to root and run Linux on them, who are you to prevent me? Believing that all systems must be maximally flexible is a scarcity mindset that felt more reasonable when families had to save to be able to afford a desktop computer that would be in use for several years.
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      > Believing that all systems must be maximally flexible is a scarcity mindset that felt more reasonable when families had to save to be able to afford a desktop computer that would be in use for several years. This is a good insight and it's entirely possible that general purpose computing was a historical aberration. You say you want to be able to choose between a real computer and a restricted appliance, but how long will the market allow you to make that choice? Selling locked-down terminals with access to a pay-to-play "platform" is obviously very profitable. How much longer will MacOS and Windows allow you to install unverified software?
      - giovannibajo1 6y ago
        I don't think there is a cogent risk that general computing open platforms will go away soon. PCs can be self-assembled without buying them as an appliance from a specific vendor, and you can at the very least install Linux on them. If you care about Windows, Microsoft is adopting open source more and more, you can have install Ubuntu within Windows right now, I doubt they will change course on software installation. I do have a Linux box in my home and successfully use it for many tasks. This doesn't mean that I feel that all devices that have a CPU in my home must absolutely run unsigned binaries compiled by me.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  If a user wants Epic apps on his iPhone, and Epic wants said user to have those apps, Apple should not be asked for permission. That should not have control over the device after sale. It is no longer theirs.
donarb 6y ago
Microsoft can fire game developers from Xbox.
- Maascamp 6y ago
  But doing so wouldn't make that developer's software unusable on Windows.
  - baddox 6y ago
    Being banned from the iOS App Store also doesn't make your software unusable on Windows, or Mac, or any other non-iOS platform. The App Store's exclusivity is precisely the same as that of nearly every video game console.
    - brmgb 6y ago
      > The App Store's exclusivity is precisely the same as that of nearly every video game console. I don't understand why you keep bringing up video game consoles in this discussion. 1. You seem to believe people actually agree with the way console stores work. This is not the case. 2. The fact that the situation is also terrible somewhere else doesn't absolve Apple of anything. That's not how justice works.
      - baddox 6y ago
        If you are consistent in your claims and believe that all computing devices, including smartphones, game consoles, e-book readers, GPS watches, car entertainment centers, etc. should be required to provide a way for owners to run unsigned code, then my accusations of inconsistency do not apply to you. In fact, I see much much less vitriol aimed towards game console store policy than iOS App Store policy. That's why I mention it.
        brmgb 6y ago
        You are intentionally muddying the water by bringing code signing (a technicality) and devices for which software distribution was never part of the economics. Nevertheless, yes, I think making ebook readers tied to a single store illegal would be a net positive from consumers. It would let stores compete on their merits as stores and readers as readers. More competition is always good. Pointedly, my argument is simple: the modern concept of plateform, as has been pushed by management consulting firms for the past two decades and successfully been exploited by hightech companies, is a blatant attack against anti competition laws and I believe the whole thing only started because the US government decided it would only meekly enforce them. Rebranding barriers to entry moats shouldn't make artificially building them more acceptable. As you rightfully pointed, plateforms seem to be popping everywhere nowadays from game consoles to cars. I don't find that surprising: reducing competition is like crack cocaine to companies. It both means less need to innovate and differentiate and a larger share of customers surplus (theorically all customer surplus but it might be too blatant then). Customers are the ones losing there. As the whole thing strongly goes against one of the core tenant of modern capitalism, it seems obvious to me it is going to end with more regulations as soon as the political zeitgeist regarding economy will lean less towards extrem laissez-faire. Unless of course, we decide to go full-bore towards nineteenth century style capitalism...
Shivetya 6y ago
They are trying here to separate iOS from Apple devices which is being deceitful. There is nothing Apple is doing that prevents them from running on an Android phone. That is the key here, Epic and some others are trying to change how Apple has implemented their device. iOS and the hardware are part and parcel. You don't get to choose which OS you run as it was never designed to support such action. iOS was never an open OS, you cannot legally install it on other devices either.
baddox 6y ago
Arguments of this form always rely on nebulous definitions of what counts as a "choice." Sure, if you're banned from a specific app store, you cannot use that specific app store, because that's just what is means to be banned. You can, of course, still access any other app store.
- mantap 6y ago
  Imagine if Google decided tomorrow to ban App Stores other than Google Play Store on Android. This would mean that there's only two app stores: Apple's and Google's. Google doesn't do that because that would be an abuse of their market position and they would get rinsed in the courts. Since the same laws apply to Google as Apple, and Apple clearly has significant market power in smartphone and tablet computers, it stands to reason that Apple should be prohibited from doing the same thing.
  - baddox 6y ago
    > Google doesn't do that because that would be an abuse of their market position and they would get rinsed in the courts. Are you sure that Google doesn't do that because the Android platform is an extremely viable and lucrative alternative to iPhones, and that people who value the ability to sideload software on their smartphones flock to Android for precisely this reason?
    - mantap 6y ago
      Whether they want to or not is beside the point, which is to consider whether it would be anticompetitive for Google to ban other app stores from Android. As far as I can see, what distinguishes Apple from Google is status quo. Apple never did allow app distribution other than through the Apple App Store. i.e. "We've always been doing it"
      - baddox 6y ago
        > which is to consider whether it would be anticompetitive for Google to ban other app stores from Android That's what I'm getting at. Is it anticompetitive to deliberately make your product worse by removing a key differentiator between your product and its closest competitor? Or come at it from another angle: would it be "anticompetitive" for Apple to (in new iPhones) completely remove the App Store and thus all reasonable expectation to be able to run third-party software? Is it anticompetitive to sell a handheld computer than can do email, play music and videos, etc., but not run third-party software?
danudey 6y ago
If Epic thinks that Apple's and Google's store conditions are onerous, just wait until they find out what it's like to ship a game on PS4 or XBox.
- nightski 6y ago
  Actually shipping on Xbox one is quite simple and mostly free with the ID@Xbox program or the Creators program.
  - theshrike79 6y ago
    And if you slip stuff that’s against the rules on Xbox and sue Microsoft, they’ll just let you keep your accounts open and keep selling your applications?
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Depends on what rules you break, but yes generally they will.
  - danudey 6y ago
    The ID@Xbox program is for indie developers, not multibillion-dollar corporations.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  If only Epic had ever published a game on PS4 or the Xbox… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_by_Epic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_by_Epic_Games
  - danudey 6y ago
    thatsthejoke.gif
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  This whole thing is about Fortnite which is already on both of those platforms.
montagg 6y ago
That’s pretty core to any anti-trust argument that is built on monopoly: is the iOS market distinct from the smartphone and tablet markets?

by mantap 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

giovannibajo1 6y ago

Fortnite is available on several different game consoles and platforms (most of which, by the way, have a 30% commission fee). It used to be the case that it wasn’t available on iOS, and it was a planetary success already. Customers that had a iOS device and absolutely wanted Fortnite had to resort to use another platform, eg. buy a PC or a PlayStation. Now we’re back on the situations where we were before: Fortnite won’t be available on the iOS platform (like it’s not available for others), and customers will have to play it in other platforms. I’m not sure how this shows a monopoly. On the contrary, I think it will be hard for Epic to prove that Apple has a “monopolistic power” on Fortnite distribution when they got billionaires through it even before it was ported to iOS. EDIT: downvotes on HN for stating an opinion?

woofie11 6y ago
Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly.
- baddox 6y ago
  Okay, then since we've failed to argue that Apple is a monopoly, what's the next antitrust argument, and how does it apple to iPhones but not to game consoles (which have the same if not stricter restrictions to third-party software developers)?
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Game consoles are toys, smartphones are an integral part of people's lives and livelihoods.
    - baddox 6y ago
      That's a very flimsy definition of the difference. Game consoles are generally much more powerful general-purpose PCs that can do everything an iPhone can do (except connecting to cell networks). They tend to be full multimedia consumption devices and can also manage other electronics in your home (lights, security cameras, etc.). Any supposed benefit iPhone owners would gain from being able to run unsigned code would also apply to console owners.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        True, but your Tesla has a super-powerful general purpose computer in it that connects to cell networks, and is likely way more powerful. Nobody's going to argue a Tesla is a PC.
        baddox 6y ago
        I'm curious how someone could argue that Apple's App Store rules are anticompetitve and that they should be forced to change them, while also arguing that the same doesn't apply to Tesla's media computer(s). Is it just because there are more iPhones than Teslas?
        arcticbull 6y ago
        FWIW I personally don't. However, I see the argument to be made that in selling a Mac or an iPhone, you're being sold a general-purpose computing device with explicit value added by third-party software vendors. Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. When you bought a Tesla, that wasn't how the car was represented to you. It's purpose is to drive, and yeah it's got a sweet big screen that happens to run apps, but that's ancillary. Legally, I think that matters. From a free-software perspective, I agree, I would also like to run whatever I want on my car.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly. Yes, it does. https://www.justice.gov/atr/monopoly-power-and-market-power-antitrust-law https://www.justice.gov/atr/monopoly-power-and-market-power-...
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Did you read the link you just posted? Seriously. It clearly states what I said, and contradicts what you said. As per YOUR LINK, you don't need a monopoly for antitrust; just "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market." Apple unambiguously has this with their app store.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Not all antitrust violations require monopoly power, that is true. For example, price fixing is illegal even if the companies involved do not have monopoly power. However, several of the claims Epic made in their lawsuit do require proving that Apple has monopoly power, which is going to be a difficult argument with their current 46% market share.
      - woofie11 6y ago
        Which ones? I only skimmed the case, but it looked like market power would suffice. In either case, the standard legal approach is to throw the kitchen sink of claims, to see which ones stick. Most claims get rejected by the courts, but if you have a few that work, it's enough. It also helps settle. If I have a dozen $10 million dollar claims, with a 5% chance of success each, a rational opponent will throw me $6 million to go away. If the parties settle, the kitchen sink approach is not a bad one to get a better settlement.
        nodamage 6y ago
        The claims of "unlawful monopoly maintenance" in particular. But you're right, I think their best chance of success is the tying claim between "iOS App Distribution" and "iOS In-App Payment Processing" which only requires market power. I don't think Epic cares to settle here though, they have more than enough money to keep this suit going for the next decade.
ForHackernews 6y ago
Holy s* this is a surreal comment to read on Hacker News. Once upon a time we believed in general-purpose computing devices that allowed users -- their owners! -- to run whatever software they pleased. Now you speak of "platforms" that charge a tax in return for preventing users from installing software -- on their own devices they actually literally own, mind. Can you imagine if your car would only operate on roads approved by Ford?
- krrrh 6y ago
  I believe in general purpose computers, I see them every day and I know they exist. I also believe in choice and experimentation when it comes to business models. If I want to buy some systems with trade offs and benefits that don’t always include being able to root and run Linux on them, who are you to prevent me? Believing that all systems must be maximally flexible is a scarcity mindset that felt more reasonable when families had to save to be able to afford a desktop computer that would be in use for several years.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    > Believing that all systems must be maximally flexible is a scarcity mindset that felt more reasonable when families had to save to be able to afford a desktop computer that would be in use for several years. This is a good insight and it's entirely possible that general purpose computing was a historical aberration. You say you want to be able to choose between a real computer and a restricted appliance, but how long will the market allow you to make that choice? Selling locked-down terminals with access to a pay-to-play "platform" is obviously very profitable. How much longer will MacOS and Windows allow you to install unverified software?
    - giovannibajo1 6y ago
      I don't think there is a cogent risk that general computing open platforms will go away soon. PCs can be self-assembled without buying them as an appliance from a specific vendor, and you can at the very least install Linux on them. If you care about Windows, Microsoft is adopting open source more and more, you can have install Ubuntu within Windows right now, I doubt they will change course on software installation. I do have a Linux box in my home and successfully use it for many tasks. This doesn't mean that I feel that all devices that have a CPU in my home must absolutely run unsigned binaries compiled by me.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
If a user wants Epic apps on his iPhone, and Epic wants said user to have those apps, Apple should not be asked for permission. That should not have control over the device after sale. It is no longer theirs.

donarb 6y ago

Microsoft can fire game developers from Xbox.

Maascamp 6y ago
But doing so wouldn't make that developer's software unusable on Windows.
- baddox 6y ago
  Being banned from the iOS App Store also doesn't make your software unusable on Windows, or Mac, or any other non-iOS platform. The App Store's exclusivity is precisely the same as that of nearly every video game console.
  - brmgb 6y ago
    > The App Store's exclusivity is precisely the same as that of nearly every video game console. I don't understand why you keep bringing up video game consoles in this discussion. 1. You seem to believe people actually agree with the way console stores work. This is not the case. 2. The fact that the situation is also terrible somewhere else doesn't absolve Apple of anything. That's not how justice works.
    - baddox 6y ago
      If you are consistent in your claims and believe that all computing devices, including smartphones, game consoles, e-book readers, GPS watches, car entertainment centers, etc. should be required to provide a way for owners to run unsigned code, then my accusations of inconsistency do not apply to you. In fact, I see much much less vitriol aimed towards game console store policy than iOS App Store policy. That's why I mention it.
      - brmgb 6y ago
        You are intentionally muddying the water by bringing code signing (a technicality) and devices for which software distribution was never part of the economics. Nevertheless, yes, I think making ebook readers tied to a single store illegal would be a net positive from consumers. It would let stores compete on their merits as stores and readers as readers. More competition is always good. Pointedly, my argument is simple: the modern concept of plateform, as has been pushed by management consulting firms for the past two decades and successfully been exploited by hightech companies, is a blatant attack against anti competition laws and I believe the whole thing only started because the US government decided it would only meekly enforce them. Rebranding barriers to entry moats shouldn't make artificially building them more acceptable. As you rightfully pointed, plateforms seem to be popping everywhere nowadays from game consoles to cars. I don't find that surprising: reducing competition is like crack cocaine to companies. It both means less need to innovate and differentiate and a larger share of customers surplus (theorically all customer surplus but it might be too blatant then). Customers are the ones losing there. As the whole thing strongly goes against one of the core tenant of modern capitalism, it seems obvious to me it is going to end with more regulations as soon as the political zeitgeist regarding economy will lean less towards extrem laissez-faire. Unless of course, we decide to go full-bore towards nineteenth century style capitalism...

Shivetya 6y ago

They are trying here to separate iOS from Apple devices which is being deceitful. There is nothing Apple is doing that prevents them from running on an Android phone. That is the key here, Epic and some others are trying to change how Apple has implemented their device. iOS and the hardware are part and parcel. You don't get to choose which OS you run as it was never designed to support such action. iOS was never an open OS, you cannot legally install it on other devices either.

baddox 6y ago

Arguments of this form always rely on nebulous definitions of what counts as a "choice." Sure, if you're banned from a specific app store, you cannot use that specific app store, because that's just what is means to be banned. You can, of course, still access any other app store.

mantap 6y ago
Imagine if Google decided tomorrow to ban App Stores other than Google Play Store on Android. This would mean that there's only two app stores: Apple's and Google's. Google doesn't do that because that would be an abuse of their market position and they would get rinsed in the courts. Since the same laws apply to Google as Apple, and Apple clearly has significant market power in smartphone and tablet computers, it stands to reason that Apple should be prohibited from doing the same thing.
- baddox 6y ago
  > Google doesn't do that because that would be an abuse of their market position and they would get rinsed in the courts. Are you sure that Google doesn't do that because the Android platform is an extremely viable and lucrative alternative to iPhones, and that people who value the ability to sideload software on their smartphones flock to Android for precisely this reason?
  - mantap 6y ago
    Whether they want to or not is beside the point, which is to consider whether it would be anticompetitive for Google to ban other app stores from Android. As far as I can see, what distinguishes Apple from Google is status quo. Apple never did allow app distribution other than through the Apple App Store. i.e. "We've always been doing it"
    - baddox 6y ago
      > which is to consider whether it would be anticompetitive for Google to ban other app stores from Android That's what I'm getting at. Is it anticompetitive to deliberately make your product worse by removing a key differentiator between your product and its closest competitor? Or come at it from another angle: would it be "anticompetitive" for Apple to (in new iPhones) completely remove the App Store and thus all reasonable expectation to be able to run third-party software? Is it anticompetitive to sell a handheld computer than can do email, play music and videos, etc., but not run third-party software?

danudey 6y ago

If Epic thinks that Apple's and Google's store conditions are onerous, just wait until they find out what it's like to ship a game on PS4 or XBox.

nightski 6y ago
Actually shipping on Xbox one is quite simple and mostly free with the ID@Xbox program or the Creators program.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  And if you slip stuff that’s against the rules on Xbox and sue Microsoft, they’ll just let you keep your accounts open and keep selling your applications?
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Depends on what rules you break, but yes generally they will.
- danudey 6y ago
  The ID@Xbox program is for indie developers, not multibillion-dollar corporations.
Hamuko 6y ago
If only Epic had ever published a game on PS4 or the Xbox… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_by_Epic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_by_Epic_Games
- danudey 6y ago
  thatsthejoke.gif
mcintyre1994 6y ago
This whole thing is about Fortnite which is already on both of those platforms.

montagg 6y ago

That’s pretty core to any anti-trust argument that is built on monopoly: is the iOS market distinct from the smartphone and tablet markets?