7 ms·

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 wa

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.
        baddox 6y ago
        > 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. I agree with that, and I think there would be a much stronger argument if Apple changed MacOS to remove this ability when it is a very well-established ability of the Mac platform. Of course, Apple almost certainly will not remove this ability, not because they want to be nice or they want to dodge antitrust allegations, but because they know that doing so would lose them customers. But with iPhone, my argument is that this is absolutely not the expectation fostered by Apple's marketing or held by the vast majority of iPhone owners. Apple has always been very proud of its App Store and its (supposedly) strict vetting process to protect iPhone owners from malware, privacy violations, and other junk. Now, I personally think Apple should be much more restrictive about what apps it allows in the store, because there is a vast wasteland of abandoned apps and junk apps. If anything, the iPhone seems to have gotten less and less restrictive over time (the first iPhone didn't even support any third-party software, after all). I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to.
    - YarickR2 6y ago
      Games on smartphones are not integral part of people lives and livelihoods.
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        Perhaps, but the lawsuit isn't specifically about games either.
    - misnome 6y ago
      What's preventing a console being used as a productivity platform? Isn't it just the artificial restriction on where you can get software for it from?
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        Its stated purpose. Sony once tried to get some tax advantages by classifying the PS3 as a general purpose computer, which they achieved through the "OtherOS" feature, which allowed you to run Linux. They later removed that feature, causing a class action lawsuit, which they settled.
        hnick 6y ago
        Is it simple to find out what category Apple is importing iPhones under in various places? I had a quick search but not hitting anything relevant.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    You are free to make and sell games for the PlayStation and Xbox without going through Sony or MS... However, in order to get a key that works with their DRM or console OSs, you do need a license.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- 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.

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.
        baddox 6y ago
        > 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. I agree with that, and I think there would be a much stronger argument if Apple changed MacOS to remove this ability when it is a very well-established ability of the Mac platform. Of course, Apple almost certainly will not remove this ability, not because they want to be nice or they want to dodge antitrust allegations, but because they know that doing so would lose them customers. But with iPhone, my argument is that this is absolutely not the expectation fostered by Apple's marketing or held by the vast majority of iPhone owners. Apple has always been very proud of its App Store and its (supposedly) strict vetting process to protect iPhone owners from malware, privacy violations, and other junk. Now, I personally think Apple should be much more restrictive about what apps it allows in the store, because there is a vast wasteland of abandoned apps and junk apps. If anything, the iPhone seems to have gotten less and less restrictive over time (the first iPhone didn't even support any third-party software, after all). I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to.
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    Games on smartphones are not integral part of people lives and livelihoods.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Perhaps, but the lawsuit isn't specifically about games either.
  - misnome 6y ago
    What's preventing a console being used as a productivity platform? Isn't it just the artificial restriction on where you can get software for it from?
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Its stated purpose. Sony once tried to get some tax advantages by classifying the PS3 as a general purpose computer, which they achieved through the "OtherOS" feature, which allowed you to run Linux. They later removed that feature, causing a class action lawsuit, which they settled.
      - hnick 6y ago
        Is it simple to find out what category Apple is importing iPhones under in various places? I had a quick search but not hitting anything relevant.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You are free to make and sell games for the PlayStation and Xbox without going through Sony or MS... However, in order to get a key that works with their DRM or console OSs, you do need a license.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
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.