8 ms·

The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grav

The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.

tmotwu 6y ago
This should alarm any developer. Any iOS developer could be at risk to pay Apple punitive damages whenever they determine their rules have been broken.
- kingnothing 6y ago
  That's exactly how contract law works.
- m3kw9 6y ago
  If they are dumb enough to pull this Epic move and sue Apple you bet they will sue back
- simonh 6y ago
  The punitive damages are not for simply breaking the rules, this is made very clear in the filing, they are for knowingly and deliberately breaking them with a full understanding of the legal consequences for doing so.
  - pier25 6y ago
    The punitive damage could as simple as Apple putting you out of business if you rely mostly on your iOS app to survive. We've seen this many times, it's not exclusive to the case against Epic.
    - DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
      Apple is explicitly stating that they retaliated so hard against Epic specifically because Epic (1) asked for permission to break the contract, and then (2) broke the contract when they did not receive permission (even going so far as to send upper Apple leadership a letter informing them of the decision). So Apple's argument is that Epic was deliberately trying to start a big dramatic issue, and Apple wants compensation for being dragged into it. --- Please note that I have not weighed in on whether I think Apple or Epic is in the right (legally or otherwise). I'm just informing you of their justification, and why they claim this isn't a danger for other developers who may accidentally (or, perhaps, much more minorly) break the terms of service.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Then complain about those cases, not this one where the argument does not hold.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Just like game consoles have been doing for the last 40 years.
  - orangecat 6y ago
    Right. And some of us are very opposed to that model taking over the majority of computing.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Then give money to companies that don't offer that model. I have no understanding for anyone that buys Apple and then complains.
      - sunderw 6y ago
        There aren't a lot of alternatives in the smartphone space. If you don't like Android, you're stuck with Apple. Now if both are abusing their power, using your reasoning, you're supposed to say and do nothing ?
        mvanbaak 6y ago
        No, one is allowed to do something. One could, you know, make a case that it should be illegal, go to court to get that official, and then the way to implement your own payment processing is open. But beginning at the last step, is totally the wrong order to do these kind of things. Besides that, Epic and Apple had an agreement the moment Epic published fortnite in the app store. If they dont like the contract, they can leave. Again, if they think the terms are illegal, go fight that out BEFORE you implement something that breaks the contract.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Yes, just like I don't have a say in what the supermarket around the corner decides to sell, besides taking the effort to go somewhere else. Or what goes into each game console, my cable provider installs on their set top box, and so on.
- Bud 6y ago
  That's not a realistic risk. Epic planned ahead to pick a fight, prepared dishonest advertising, again in advance, and has generally acted in bad faith. I for one am happy to see Apple fire back with both barrels. Epic deserves it. A message has to be sent.
ksk 6y ago
Yes, it is setting a dangerous precedent. A general purpose computing device is now a "service" that you need to pay for. With that logic you can call anything a service. An OS is a service that lets you stream "unlimited" video to your display. Given the level of greed displayed by Apple, they're going to setup a tollbooth at every single spot they can. Maybe Intel can setup the ultimate tollbooth on their CPU by providing a "computing service" that lets you use their CPU for an "unlimited" amount of time. Tech is so depressing these days.. :(
- parasubvert 6y ago
  Software has always, since it was first sold in the 1960s, been a licensed product/service. You never owned anything - you had a contract for a certain set of functionality and support, maybe upgrades. Tolls like the above were how the mainframe started and are nothing new. We had a historical anomaly with the PC being a hobby platform at its roots where everything felt so free. Legally it never was, that was a marketing fiction created by Apple, Microsoft, IBM and others.
  - ksk 6y ago
    What I'm getting at is the subversion of the control of the platform from the user to the vendor. Maybe it was due to the technical limitations of the time, or the sensibilities of geek-culture, but the vendor never controlled the device once they sold it to you. You didn't need to beg for permission to compile software on mainframes.
    - parasubvert 6y ago
      I think a lot of this is because of the hobbiest roots of the PC, it was never taken seriously as a commercial device at first, and had broad tinkering support from the early days. They never could really abandon that stance because of those who adopted new products. Any attempt to do a sealed experience for average users was subpar in execution... except perhaps gaming consoles.
- cafed00d 6y ago
parasubvert 6y ago
arguably the whole reason for iOS’ success is that it is a service, and not just a passive piece of software. I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs. Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer. Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties. This is similar to the shift to cloud computing. It’s more valuable to have a service take care of me than to have the freedom of licensed software . I’m not saying this stance is without problems - but it does seem to be what the market is saying. It’s also worth noting that software always has been considered a service in some sectors - enterprise software dating back to the 1970s for example required 21-25% of your purchase price in annual service & support fees with penalties if you terminate.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs. We would never even be at the level we're at if there weren't those malware-plagued PCs and their open marketplace of software and operating systems competing with each other. > Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer. You mean Windows did, because A) it was the OS of the vast majority of desktop systems and B) they had a culture and practice of not taking security very seriously, or at least prioritizing so many things over it that the outcome was the same. Apple's operating systems traditionally faced less scrutiny (but now there are more security problems since they are more popular). Windows has gotten much better and Microsoft appears to be much more serious about security (since it because a large enough problem to actually threaten their OS market dominance). > Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties. Not really my experience over the last 6-7 years. Prior to that, depending on OS, sure. > This is similar to the shift to cloud computing. It’s more valuable to have a service take care of me than to have the freedom of licensed software . To you, sure, but for the average person or company, it's variable and based on many things (capability, scale, etc). > It’s also worth noting that software always has been considered a service in some sectors - enterprise software dating back to the 1970s for example required 21-25% of your purchase price in annual service & support fees with penalties if you terminate. The enterprise doesn't really scale to the individual level we're talking about at all. An enterprise buying a specific computer with certain hardware with a custom OS delivered as a service is like a person buying some Tamagotchi toy and looking at it for 5 minutes a day for a week. Enterprises run anywhere from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of desktops and/or servers and any software as a service they pay for in that ecosystem is minuscule compared to the whole. Apple controls a non-negligible portion of most iPhone users compute time in one way or another (or multiple ways).
inopinatus 6y ago
Yes, this is essentially an argument that Apple owns the scope of consumer choice and can decide what you, the consumer, may or may not do and see with hardware and software that you have paid for. It has direct parallels to that age-old argument beloved of software lawyers that consumers do not own their copy of installed software, but are merely borrowing it by the grace of the vendor.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The major consumer benefit of the iPhone is the walled garden. Consumers buy iPhones specifically because of safety and security. App curation is a big part of that.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    There is no history of consumers overcoming price elasticity on the basis of software platform security preferences, so that's a bold claim requiring hard evidence. In contrast, here's a study that says even consumers in one of the most technologically aware regional markets do not perceive a difference between iOS and Android safety: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316573401_A_Study_on_the_Influence_of_Information_Security_on_Consumer%27s_Preference_of_Android_and_iOS_based_Smartphone https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316573401_A_Study_o... which is much more in keeping with just about everybody's experience of people outside the tech echo chamber.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Apple knows their customers better than researchers can ever, esp some small sample of Korean users, and they spend a huge amount of effort promoting security and safety.
      - inopinatus 6y ago
        I guess that works if your values system includes the axiom “whatever Apple spend a lot of money on can’t be wrong.” Even better if you allow yourself to make giant leaps of assumption about the underlying motives. Then it can justify almost any apology for bad behaviour.

tmotwu 6y ago

This should alarm any developer. Any iOS developer could be at risk to pay Apple punitive damages whenever they determine their rules have been broken.

kingnothing 6y ago
That's exactly how contract law works.
m3kw9 6y ago
If they are dumb enough to pull this Epic move and sue Apple you bet they will sue back
simonh 6y ago
The punitive damages are not for simply breaking the rules, this is made very clear in the filing, they are for knowingly and deliberately breaking them with a full understanding of the legal consequences for doing so.
- pier25 6y ago
  The punitive damage could as simple as Apple putting you out of business if you rely mostly on your iOS app to survive. We've seen this many times, it's not exclusive to the case against Epic.
  - DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
    Apple is explicitly stating that they retaliated so hard against Epic specifically because Epic (1) asked for permission to break the contract, and then (2) broke the contract when they did not receive permission (even going so far as to send upper Apple leadership a letter informing them of the decision). So Apple's argument is that Epic was deliberately trying to start a big dramatic issue, and Apple wants compensation for being dragged into it. --- Please note that I have not weighed in on whether I think Apple or Epic is in the right (legally or otherwise). I'm just informing you of their justification, and why they claim this isn't a danger for other developers who may accidentally (or, perhaps, much more minorly) break the terms of service.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Then complain about those cases, not this one where the argument does not hold.
pjmlp 6y ago
Just like game consoles have been doing for the last 40 years.
- orangecat 6y ago
  Right. And some of us are very opposed to that model taking over the majority of computing.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Then give money to companies that don't offer that model. I have no understanding for anyone that buys Apple and then complains.
    - sunderw 6y ago
      There aren't a lot of alternatives in the smartphone space. If you don't like Android, you're stuck with Apple. Now if both are abusing their power, using your reasoning, you're supposed to say and do nothing ?
      - mvanbaak 6y ago
        No, one is allowed to do something. One could, you know, make a case that it should be illegal, go to court to get that official, and then the way to implement your own payment processing is open. But beginning at the last step, is totally the wrong order to do these kind of things. Besides that, Epic and Apple had an agreement the moment Epic published fortnite in the app store. If they dont like the contract, they can leave. Again, if they think the terms are illegal, go fight that out BEFORE you implement something that breaks the contract.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Yes, just like I don't have a say in what the supermarket around the corner decides to sell, besides taking the effort to go somewhere else. Or what goes into each game console, my cable provider installs on their set top box, and so on.
Bud 6y ago
That's not a realistic risk. Epic planned ahead to pick a fight, prepared dishonest advertising, again in advance, and has generally acted in bad faith. I for one am happy to see Apple fire back with both barrels. Epic deserves it. A message has to be sent.

ksk 6y ago

Yes, it is setting a dangerous precedent. A general purpose computing device is now a "service" that you need to pay for. With that logic you can call anything a service. An OS is a service that lets you stream "unlimited" video to your display. Given the level of greed displayed by Apple, they're going to setup a tollbooth at every single spot they can. Maybe Intel can setup the ultimate tollbooth on their CPU by providing a "computing service" that lets you use their CPU for an "unlimited" amount of time. Tech is so depressing these days.. :(

parasubvert 6y ago
Software has always, since it was first sold in the 1960s, been a licensed product/service. You never owned anything - you had a contract for a certain set of functionality and support, maybe upgrades. Tolls like the above were how the mainframe started and are nothing new. We had a historical anomaly with the PC being a hobby platform at its roots where everything felt so free. Legally it never was, that was a marketing fiction created by Apple, Microsoft, IBM and others.
- ksk 6y ago
  What I'm getting at is the subversion of the control of the platform from the user to the vendor. Maybe it was due to the technical limitations of the time, or the sensibilities of geek-culture, but the vendor never controlled the device once they sold it to you. You didn't need to beg for permission to compile software on mainframes.
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    I think a lot of this is because of the hobbiest roots of the PC, it was never taken seriously as a commercial device at first, and had broad tinkering support from the early days. They never could really abandon that stance because of those who adopted new products. Any attempt to do a sealed experience for average users was subpar in execution... except perhaps gaming consoles.
cafed00d 6y ago

parasubvert 6y ago

arguably the whole reason for iOS’ success is that it is a service, and not just a passive piece of software. I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs. Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer. Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties. This is similar to the shift to cloud computing. It’s more valuable to have a service take care of me than to have the freedom of licensed software . I’m not saying this stance is without problems - but it does seem to be what the market is saying. It’s also worth noting that software always has been considered a service in some sectors - enterprise software dating back to the 1970s for example required 21-25% of your purchase price in annual service & support fees with penalties if you terminate.

kbenson 6y ago
> I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs. We would never even be at the level we're at if there weren't those malware-plagued PCs and their open marketplace of software and operating systems competing with each other. > Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer. You mean Windows did, because A) it was the OS of the vast majority of desktop systems and B) they had a culture and practice of not taking security very seriously, or at least prioritizing so many things over it that the outcome was the same. Apple's operating systems traditionally faced less scrutiny (but now there are more security problems since they are more popular). Windows has gotten much better and Microsoft appears to be much more serious about security (since it because a large enough problem to actually threaten their OS market dominance). > Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties. Not really my experience over the last 6-7 years. Prior to that, depending on OS, sure. > This is similar to the shift to cloud computing. It’s more valuable to have a service take care of me than to have the freedom of licensed software . To you, sure, but for the average person or company, it's variable and based on many things (capability, scale, etc). > It’s also worth noting that software always has been considered a service in some sectors - enterprise software dating back to the 1970s for example required 21-25% of your purchase price in annual service & support fees with penalties if you terminate. The enterprise doesn't really scale to the individual level we're talking about at all. An enterprise buying a specific computer with certain hardware with a custom OS delivered as a service is like a person buying some Tamagotchi toy and looking at it for 5 minutes a day for a week. Enterprises run anywhere from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of desktops and/or servers and any software as a service they pay for in that ecosystem is minuscule compared to the whole. Apple controls a non-negligible portion of most iPhone users compute time in one way or another (or multiple ways).

inopinatus 6y ago

Yes, this is essentially an argument that Apple owns the scope of consumer choice and can decide what you, the consumer, may or may not do and see with hardware and software that you have paid for. It has direct parallels to that age-old argument beloved of software lawyers that consumers do not own their copy of installed software, but are merely borrowing it by the grace of the vendor.

valuearb 6y ago
The major consumer benefit of the iPhone is the walled garden. Consumers buy iPhones specifically because of safety and security. App curation is a big part of that.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  There is no history of consumers overcoming price elasticity on the basis of software platform security preferences, so that's a bold claim requiring hard evidence. In contrast, here's a study that says even consumers in one of the most technologically aware regional markets do not perceive a difference between iOS and Android safety: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316573401_A_Study_on_the_Influence_of_Information_Security_on_Consumer%27s_Preference_of_Android_and_iOS_based_Smartphone https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316573401_A_Study_o... which is much more in keeping with just about everybody's experience of people outside the tech echo chamber.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Apple knows their customers better than researchers can ever, esp some small sample of Korean users, and they spend a huge amount of effort promoting security and safety.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      I guess that works if your values system includes the axiom “whatever Apple spend a lot of money on can’t be wrong.” Even better if you allow yourself to make giant leaps of assumption about the underlying motives. Then it can justify almost any apology for bad behaviour.