4 ms·

Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can

Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can already play Fortnite on your PC. Apple cannot stop you from owning a PC, so Apple cannot stop you from playing Fortnite. Yes, Apple is a gatekeeper for its platform. But we've known this forever. Sony is a gatekeeper for the playstation, and Microsoft is a gatekeeper for the Xbox. If developers want the lowest friction possible when releasing games, use a platform where you can release your own store (which Epic already has).

WWLink 6y ago
I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions." This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin. lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.
nick_kline 6y ago
The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.
mrich 6y ago
At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.
- unknown2374 6y ago
  There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too. The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
  - ece 6y ago
    While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose. General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does. Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies. The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
    - notSupplied 6y ago
      What if the phone is in the hands of millions of people in the first place because it is full of apps? Didn’t the Mac cede it’s place in PC history because Windows had more software?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- Thorentis 6y ago
  I am on board with the internet being common infrastructure, since you cannot own your own fibre cable that goes to the ISP (at least not easily and cheaply). With hardware it is different. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone. Nobody forced you to buy an Android, Windows, Nokia, whatever phone. Same with laptops. If you want an open platform, buy one. If you want an open OS, install one. Don't buy an iPhone, complain about the platform not being open enough for you, and then demand that all platforms be made common infrastructure so that you're absolved of making decisions about the hardware you use.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Would you make the same claim about Internet Explorer? Imagine if Microsoft required a 30 percent cut for any transaction that is done on a windows PC. The same exact arguments you are using could justify this. But, obviously, this is illegal, and similar behavior was proven as such, by the courts.
    - Thorentis 6y ago
      Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. But it is ubiquitous now. As of last month, the iphone now has 52.4% of the US market. > The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. Anticompetitive behavior become illegal when a company has enough market power. > It's only now that people are turning around and complaining Well yes, that is how anti-competitive laws work. If a company has enough market power, previously legal practices can become illegal.
shados 6y ago
iOS + Android is at least as big of a deal as Windows was back in the IE vs Netscape days. The bar for antitrust isn't "you literally cannot live without the thing". Even if you make a case that for Epic it doesn't matter that much, the Hey mail case was another big one: if you try to make a new email service and ignore Apple/Google, you're dead on arrival. That's a problem.
ALittleLight 6y ago
Why doesn't Windows take 30% whenever you try to play a game there? I don't know about legality, but philosophically it's offensive to me that Apple and Google get to be landlords leeching off app developers. I paid for my phone. It should run the software I want it to, and if I want to buy an app for it I shouldn't need to pay Apple for the privilege.
- swinglock 6y ago
  I'm sure they take a cut if you use the Microsoft Store. You know why Windows runs code not from the Microsoft Store. It's legacy. There wasn't always a Microsoft Store, running executable straight from floppy, CD-ROM or the Internet was the norm. Changing it now would be changing the product people already bought and break workflows. iPhone never had that legacy. From day 0 it only ran Apple code. Then it ran 3rd party code via the App Store. There was no such legacy. But there are older products with such a legacy. Didn't your old Nintendo have precisely the same rules from day 0 and so do modern consoles?

WWLink 6y ago

I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions." This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin. lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.

nick_kline 6y ago

The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.

mrich 6y ago

At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.

unknown2374 6y ago
There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too. The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
- ece 6y ago
  While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose. General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does. Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies. The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
  - notSupplied 6y ago
    What if the phone is in the hands of millions of people in the first place because it is full of apps? Didn’t the Mac cede it’s place in PC history because Windows had more software?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Thorentis 6y ago
I am on board with the internet being common infrastructure, since you cannot own your own fibre cable that goes to the ISP (at least not easily and cheaply). With hardware it is different. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone. Nobody forced you to buy an Android, Windows, Nokia, whatever phone. Same with laptops. If you want an open platform, buy one. If you want an open OS, install one. Don't buy an iPhone, complain about the platform not being open enough for you, and then demand that all platforms be made common infrastructure so that you're absolved of making decisions about the hardware you use.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Would you make the same claim about Internet Explorer? Imagine if Microsoft required a 30 percent cut for any transaction that is done on a windows PC. The same exact arguments you are using could justify this. But, obviously, this is illegal, and similar behavior was proven as such, by the courts.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. But it is ubiquitous now. As of last month, the iphone now has 52.4% of the US market. > The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. Anticompetitive behavior become illegal when a company has enough market power. > It's only now that people are turning around and complaining Well yes, that is how anti-competitive laws work. If a company has enough market power, previously legal practices can become illegal.

shados 6y ago

iOS + Android is at least as big of a deal as Windows was back in the IE vs Netscape days. The bar for antitrust isn't "you literally cannot live without the thing". Even if you make a case that for Epic it doesn't matter that much, the Hey mail case was another big one: if you try to make a new email service and ignore Apple/Google, you're dead on arrival. That's a problem.

ALittleLight 6y ago

Why doesn't Windows take 30% whenever you try to play a game there? I don't know about legality, but philosophically it's offensive to me that Apple and Google get to be landlords leeching off app developers. I paid for my phone. It should run the software I want it to, and if I want to buy an app for it I shouldn't need to pay Apple for the privilege.

swinglock 6y ago
I'm sure they take a cut if you use the Microsoft Store. You know why Windows runs code not from the Microsoft Store. It's legacy. There wasn't always a Microsoft Store, running executable straight from floppy, CD-ROM or the Internet was the norm. Changing it now would be changing the product people already bought and break workflows. iPhone never had that legacy. From day 0 it only ran Apple code. Then it ran 3rd party code via the App Store. There was no such legacy. But there are older products with such a legacy. Didn't your old Nintendo have precisely the same rules from day 0 and so do modern consoles?