6 ms·

What in god's name is with all the bootlickers in this thread? I have no love for Apple or Epic. But if this lawsuit leads to better treatment of third-party de

What in god's name is with all the bootlickers in this thread? I have no love for Apple or Epic. But if this lawsuit leads to better treatment of third-party developers on the platform and Apple not being able to arbitrarily control what apps consumers get to download, I don't see why Epic is being painted as the "bad guy" by so many people here. Apple has been behaving in crazy anti-competitive ways (just look at how they historically treated any developer that dared make an app that competed with their own) for years now. It's time for the hammer to fall.

nojito 6y ago
They built the platform. They maintain the platform. They promote the platform. What's arbitrary about that?
- apazzolini 6y ago
  It's disingenuous to claim Apple built and promoted the platform by themselves - third party developers are a huge reason behind iOS's success, and the iPhone wouldn't be what it is today if it only had first-party apps.
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    And? Those third party developers have already been compensated fully based on the terms they agreed to when they contributed to the platform. Apple owes them nothing at this point. Obviously it is probably in Apple's best interest to treat them fairly, but that is up to Apple to decide. And to respond to GP. This has nothing to do with "bootlicking". The same thing should apply regardless of the company.
- eganist 6y ago
  They're leveraging their control of a defacto standard platform to steer business. Android existing doesn't invalidate this claim.
  - DetroitThrow 6y ago
    Exactly: a market duopoly doesn't mean they don't have disproportionate control over consumer choices especially when there are feature and ecosystem differences between the platforms.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  Perhaps vindictive, heavy handed, preferential, and self serving are more accurate terms to their app store curation?
- cnst 6y ago
  I paid for my phone. I can do whatever I want with my phone. I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.
  - Dig1t 6y ago
    I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because you paid someone doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you to do something with the thing you bought. If the thing you bought doesn't do what you want it to do, then buy a different thing that lets you do what you want. And in this case there are literally thousands of other phones you can buy.
    - cnst 6y ago
      > doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you Apple literally doesn't have to write any software! All we're asking is for Apple to remove the software they've written that intentionally blocks any other software from working! Android has a checkbox to install apps from any source. Hardly anyone even knows about its existence, but it means that we don't have to have a black market for phones with a given app installed (context: iPhones with Fortnite already installed were being sold for 2k+ per pop on eBay when the app was blocked).
  - wilshire_nc 6y ago
    Yeah but you knew that's how it worked when you bought the phone. If you didn't like the app store model you could have bought an android right?
- actuator 6y ago
  They control the distribution channels of a general computing platform at their whim. They push their own services like Apple Music by having pre installed apps, free app store placement, not having to pay the 30% cut over other competitors like Spotify. In a low margin business that is live or die. They force a browser like Firefox to not have its own engine as well. Looks quite anti competitive to me.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  No, apple but the platform in the literal sense. The platform was built by every consumer, app devs, hardware vendors, and many others. These players of the platform voluntarily cooperate with apple, and allow apple the oversized power, because the economic values of doing that is higher than other behaviors. There isn't a moral high ground for apple, nor a particularly outsized contribution by apple considering their profit from the platform. What you said is so superficial that it does not even refer to the right topic.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  When you build a platform and it becomes so successful that it forms part of the foundation for an entire society's technological existence, you lose the privilege of arbitrarily controlling that platform. Electricity companies don't get to skim 30% off of the revenue of any factory that makes widgets using the electricity company's electricity. Cell phone carriers don't get to skim 30% off of any orders placed over their networks. Apple shouldn't be able to skim 30% off of every transaction that happens to be made on an iOS device. I don't give a damn about esoteric arguments about Apple being a "private company" or whatever: it's unacceptable for society to pay a 30% tax to Apple on a big chunk of the economic activity of an entire society. No taxation without representation, right?
xphilter 6y ago
Honestly, what is the difference between the App Store and Target? Why should a third party (or court) have any control in what the retailer sells?
- my123 6y ago
  Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Were you not aware of this fact when you chose iPhone over Android?
    - my123 6y ago
      Why would that even matter? People's opinions can change over time.
      - eternalban 6y ago
        Of course they can. But he is -not- saying he is denied the right to change his opinion: "Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time." But this should not be a surprise to an Apple customer. This is a 'feature' of Apple products.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      Android isn't much better in this regard. There is realistic choice of two smartphone operating system vendors, both of which exercise total and random control over their stores. If you look at the frontpage of HN today, several fediverse apps were just thrown off the Google Play store, so it's a choice between pest and cholera
      - eternalban 6y ago
        Ah, those are just pesky facts. It's so much more fun to play partisan geek. Don't spoil the fun.
kodt 6y ago
I’ve noticed in gaming circles that people are very anti-Epic Games and will take any opposing position no matter the facts. Epic has been trying to position their own game store as a competitor to Steam. One of the things they have been doing is spending money paying for games to be exclusive to their platform. This is seen as the ultimate evil by gamers who want all of their games in one place (on Steam).
input_sh 6y ago
I'm with you. They're both billions of dollars worth companies arguing about who should get which percentage of additional millions of dollars of profit. I'm not invested at all in this debate, but I do silently hope that Epic succeeds purely for the little guys who may benefit from that.
dang 6y ago
Please don't call names. Your comment would be fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
abc-xyz 6y ago
Epic might be painted in a bad light because they’re 40% Tencent owned, and they happen to purposely get banned and sue Apple (in a PR campaign style) shortly after Trump sign an executive order targeting Tencent’s WeChat. Or people might enjoy being able to use a device without having to worry about viruses and whatnot.. a problem plaguing Windows and slowly starting to affect many Android users as well. And while they might feel comfortable being able to avoid such viruses themselves, then they likely have friends and family that will suffer from it (you might think it’s easy not to install a different App Store, just like you might think it’s easy not to click on phishing links in your mailbox.. but it unfortunately isn’t easy for the average user). Or people might worry about losing all sorts of privacy as a result of the Apple being forced to open up various parts of their system.

nojito 6y ago

They built the platform. They maintain the platform. They promote the platform. What's arbitrary about that?

apazzolini 6y ago
It's disingenuous to claim Apple built and promoted the platform by themselves - third party developers are a huge reason behind iOS's success, and the iPhone wouldn't be what it is today if it only had first-party apps.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  And? Those third party developers have already been compensated fully based on the terms they agreed to when they contributed to the platform. Apple owes them nothing at this point. Obviously it is probably in Apple's best interest to treat them fairly, but that is up to Apple to decide. And to respond to GP. This has nothing to do with "bootlicking". The same thing should apply regardless of the company.
eganist 6y ago
They're leveraging their control of a defacto standard platform to steer business. Android existing doesn't invalidate this claim.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  Exactly: a market duopoly doesn't mean they don't have disproportionate control over consumer choices especially when there are feature and ecosystem differences between the platforms.
DetroitThrow 6y ago
Perhaps vindictive, heavy handed, preferential, and self serving are more accurate terms to their app store curation?
cnst 6y ago
I paid for my phone. I can do whatever I want with my phone. I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.
- Dig1t 6y ago
  I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because you paid someone doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you to do something with the thing you bought. If the thing you bought doesn't do what you want it to do, then buy a different thing that lets you do what you want. And in this case there are literally thousands of other phones you can buy.
  - cnst 6y ago
    > doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you Apple literally doesn't have to write any software! All we're asking is for Apple to remove the software they've written that intentionally blocks any other software from working! Android has a checkbox to install apps from any source. Hardly anyone even knows about its existence, but it means that we don't have to have a black market for phones with a given app installed (context: iPhones with Fortnite already installed were being sold for 2k+ per pop on eBay when the app was blocked).
- wilshire_nc 6y ago
  Yeah but you knew that's how it worked when you bought the phone. If you didn't like the app store model you could have bought an android right?
actuator 6y ago
They control the distribution channels of a general computing platform at their whim. They push their own services like Apple Music by having pre installed apps, free app store placement, not having to pay the 30% cut over other competitors like Spotify. In a low margin business that is live or die. They force a browser like Firefox to not have its own engine as well. Looks quite anti competitive to me.
justicezyx 6y ago
No, apple but the platform in the literal sense. The platform was built by every consumer, app devs, hardware vendors, and many others. These players of the platform voluntarily cooperate with apple, and allow apple the oversized power, because the economic values of doing that is higher than other behaviors. There isn't a moral high ground for apple, nor a particularly outsized contribution by apple considering their profit from the platform. What you said is so superficial that it does not even refer to the right topic.
quotemstr 6y ago
When you build a platform and it becomes so successful that it forms part of the foundation for an entire society's technological existence, you lose the privilege of arbitrarily controlling that platform. Electricity companies don't get to skim 30% off of the revenue of any factory that makes widgets using the electricity company's electricity. Cell phone carriers don't get to skim 30% off of any orders placed over their networks. Apple shouldn't be able to skim 30% off of every transaction that happens to be made on an iOS device. I don't give a damn about esoteric arguments about Apple being a "private company" or whatever: it's unacceptable for society to pay a 30% tax to Apple on a big chunk of the economic activity of an entire society. No taxation without representation, right?

xphilter 6y ago

Honestly, what is the difference between the App Store and Target? Why should a third party (or court) have any control in what the retailer sells?

my123 6y ago
Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Were you not aware of this fact when you chose iPhone over Android?
  - my123 6y ago
    Why would that even matter? People's opinions can change over time.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      Of course they can. But he is -not- saying he is denied the right to change his opinion: "Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time." But this should not be a surprise to an Apple customer. This is a 'feature' of Apple products.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    Android isn't much better in this regard. There is realistic choice of two smartphone operating system vendors, both of which exercise total and random control over their stores. If you look at the frontpage of HN today, several fediverse apps were just thrown off the Google Play store, so it's a choice between pest and cholera
    - eternalban 6y ago
      Ah, those are just pesky facts. It's so much more fun to play partisan geek. Don't spoil the fun.

kodt 6y ago

I’ve noticed in gaming circles that people are very anti-Epic Games and will take any opposing position no matter the facts. Epic has been trying to position their own game store as a competitor to Steam. One of the things they have been doing is spending money paying for games to be exclusive to their platform. This is seen as the ultimate evil by gamers who want all of their games in one place (on Steam).

input_sh 6y ago

I'm with you. They're both billions of dollars worth companies arguing about who should get which percentage of additional millions of dollars of profit. I'm not invested at all in this debate, but I do silently hope that Epic succeeds purely for the little guys who may benefit from that.

dang 6y ago

Please don't call names. Your comment would be fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

abc-xyz 6y ago

Epic might be painted in a bad light because they’re 40% Tencent owned, and they happen to purposely get banned and sue Apple (in a PR campaign style) shortly after Trump sign an executive order targeting Tencent’s WeChat. Or people might enjoy being able to use a device without having to worry about viruses and whatnot.. a problem plaguing Windows and slowly starting to affect many Android users as well. And while they might feel comfortable being able to avoid such viruses themselves, then they likely have friends and family that will suffer from it (you might think it’s easy not to install a different App Store, just like you might think it’s easy not to click on phishing links in your mailbox.. but it unfortunately isn’t easy for the average user). Or people might worry about losing all sorts of privacy as a result of the Apple being forced to open up various parts of their system.