6 ms·

> If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone. Epic runs their own digital di

> If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone. Epic runs their own digital distribution platform, in which they also take a cut of the sales. Their terms are different than Apples, but they still do take a cut of sales. Epic also takes 5% royalties for any (non-free) game built with Epic's Unreal Engine. Epic and Apple have the same business model, however Epic's terms are not as high as Apples. On the other hand, Epic makes a lot of money selling "cosmetics" and loot boxes. In effect, you have a company that has profited immensely from gambling, going after a company that has profited immensely due to their own closed ecosystem. (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game)

jrockway 6y ago
It doesn't really matter what Epic is doing. Loot boxes, game engines, and game mechanics aren't the issue here. The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. You know what? I played Fortnite and I hated it. I won't be installing Fortnite or buying any skins for it. But, Epic has the right to offer their product to me without interference. Apple already has $1000 of my money (actually wayyyy more than that), and now I don't want them involved in my life anymore. I think I'm entitled to that. > (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game) I think Epic did it better. That's why we don't give intellectual property rights to vague ideas like "100 players parachute into an island and shoot each other" or "after a certain amount of time a circle kills people outside of it". PUBG had their take -- super boring stakeouts to get hyper-realistic weapons. Fortnite had their take -- cartoony jumping around while you build forts. Players can choose which they want to play. (And, of course, there are like 8 billion other battle royales.)
- balls187 6y ago
  > The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. And, likewise, Apple, as the platform owner, should be able to deny access whatever software they want. You can of course, jailbreak your iphone, or install PWA's that work.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    I am just waiting untill car companies as "platform owners" start preventing you from driving to areas they don't like, or exceeding speed limit. Afterall, you just paid for the car, they still own the software that controls the engine.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      > I am just waiting untill car companies as "platform owners" start preventing you from driving to areas they don't like, or exceeding speed limit. Maybe just don’t buy that car then?
      - rpdillon 6y ago
        Just like I should buy a phone without a restrictive app store installed by default that bans apps capriciously?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        nicky0 6y ago
        Exactly, if you don't like the way Apple does things don't buy an iPhone and don't develop software for iPhones. Very simple.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        rpdillon 6y ago
        My point was that Android is the same deal.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
- supernova87a 6y ago
  > The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. That's your opinion. That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws. Please be clear about that.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws. That is your opinion. Please be clear about that. Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws. It's not a matter of what the user wants. It's a matter of Apple abusing its market position.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - threeseed 6y ago
      > Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws Please provide legal documents equivocally stating this.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890
        danbolt 6y ago
        Just to clarify, in this case, Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services?
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services? Sort of. There are two possible avenues of attack here against Apple. And it depends on how the market is defined. 1: if the "market" is defined as you have, which is a "monopoly on apple services", then it absolutely true that Apple does have a monopoly on the specific market as defined by "Apple services", and I would accept 10 to 1 betting odds on that. BUT, I think it is a bit of a stretch that the "market" will be defined that narrowly. Instead I think that the market will be defined as the smartphone market share of the USA. 2: If the market is defined as the smartphone market, in the USA, then the argument will be that Apple has control of ~50% of the market, in a 2 entity duopoly. It is a common misconception, that anti-trust law only applies in cases, of a overwhelming singular monopoly. Instead, anti-trust law, applies even in cases where there is not a singular monopoly, and the company in question only has significant market power. Controlling 50% of the market share, is a bit on the edge of whether anti-trust law applies, or does not apply, as according to government guidance. So the case is far from a slam dunk, and I think that there will be interesting arguments brought up in court. But, even though Apple has less market share than, say Microsoft did, when Microsoft lost their anti-trust case, I think that Apple's actions are significantly more restrictive than Microsoft's was, and thus this contributing factor will push them over the edge into losing the case. I expect that this case will be a landmark case, that will determine future court actions, and will be even more significant than the microsoft case was.
- threeseed 6y ago
  > I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want And you can. You just need to bypass Apple's security mechanisms.
  - hu3 6y ago
    That breaks ToS.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      And? All that means is they can refuse to service the device which to me makes sense.
  - mehrdada 6y ago
    You can, without bypassing security mechanisms. Simply acquire a free developer certificate to sign your own binaries. They work for a week but you can re-sign them.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Free developer accounts have more restriction than paid accounts do, which is already nowhere close to “I want to run anything on my device”.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    You can murder people all you like too, as long as you figure out how to never get caught.
- mitsubishi77 6y ago
  > The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. Could one not argue that you are able to do this by jailbreaking your iOS-device, which the courts have deemed perfectly legal? It seems to me that one owns the phone, but not necessarily the operating system it runs.

jrockway 6y ago

It doesn't really matter what Epic is doing. Loot boxes, game engines, and game mechanics aren't the issue here. The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. You know what? I played Fortnite and I hated it. I won't be installing Fortnite or buying any skins for it. But, Epic has the right to offer their product to me without interference. Apple already has $1000 of my money (actually wayyyy more than that), and now I don't want them involved in my life anymore. I think I'm entitled to that. > (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game) I think Epic did it better. That's why we don't give intellectual property rights to vague ideas like "100 players parachute into an island and shoot each other" or "after a certain amount of time a circle kills people outside of it". PUBG had their take -- super boring stakeouts to get hyper-realistic weapons. Fortnite had their take -- cartoony jumping around while you build forts. Players can choose which they want to play. (And, of course, there are like 8 billion other battle royales.)

balls187 6y ago
> The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. And, likewise, Apple, as the platform owner, should be able to deny access whatever software they want. You can of course, jailbreak your iphone, or install PWA's that work.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I am just waiting untill car companies as "platform owners" start preventing you from driving to areas they don't like, or exceeding speed limit. Afterall, you just paid for the car, they still own the software that controls the engine.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > I am just waiting untill car companies as "platform owners" start preventing you from driving to areas they don't like, or exceeding speed limit. Maybe just don’t buy that car then?
    - rpdillon 6y ago
      Just like I should buy a phone without a restrictive app store installed by default that bans apps capriciously?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - nicky0 6y ago
        Exactly, if you don't like the way Apple does things don't buy an iPhone and don't develop software for iPhones. Very simple.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        rpdillon 6y ago
        My point was that Android is the same deal.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
supernova87a 6y ago
> The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. That's your opinion. That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws. Please be clear about that.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws. That is your opinion. Please be clear about that. Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws. It's not a matter of what the user wants. It's a matter of Apple abusing its market position.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - threeseed 6y ago
    > Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws Please provide legal documents equivocally stating this.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890
      - danbolt 6y ago
        Just to clarify, in this case, Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services?
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services? Sort of. There are two possible avenues of attack here against Apple. And it depends on how the market is defined. 1: if the "market" is defined as you have, which is a "monopoly on apple services", then it absolutely true that Apple does have a monopoly on the specific market as defined by "Apple services", and I would accept 10 to 1 betting odds on that. BUT, I think it is a bit of a stretch that the "market" will be defined that narrowly. Instead I think that the market will be defined as the smartphone market share of the USA. 2: If the market is defined as the smartphone market, in the USA, then the argument will be that Apple has control of ~50% of the market, in a 2 entity duopoly. It is a common misconception, that anti-trust law only applies in cases, of a overwhelming singular monopoly. Instead, anti-trust law, applies even in cases where there is not a singular monopoly, and the company in question only has significant market power. Controlling 50% of the market share, is a bit on the edge of whether anti-trust law applies, or does not apply, as according to government guidance. So the case is far from a slam dunk, and I think that there will be interesting arguments brought up in court. But, even though Apple has less market share than, say Microsoft did, when Microsoft lost their anti-trust case, I think that Apple's actions are significantly more restrictive than Microsoft's was, and thus this contributing factor will push them over the edge into losing the case. I expect that this case will be a landmark case, that will determine future court actions, and will be even more significant than the microsoft case was.
threeseed 6y ago
> I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want And you can. You just need to bypass Apple's security mechanisms.
- hu3 6y ago
  That breaks ToS.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    And? All that means is they can refuse to service the device which to me makes sense.
- mehrdada 6y ago
  You can, without bypassing security mechanisms. Simply acquire a free developer certificate to sign your own binaries. They work for a week but you can re-sign them.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Free developer accounts have more restriction than paid accounts do, which is already nowhere close to “I want to run anything on my device”.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  You can murder people all you like too, as long as you figure out how to never get caught.
mitsubishi77 6y ago
> The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. Could one not argue that you are able to do this by jailbreaking your iOS-device, which the courts have deemed perfectly legal? It seems to me that one owns the phone, but not necessarily the operating system it runs.