5 ms·

> Epic isn't fighting for the little guy, they wanted their own store That's the point. This is also what the little guys want. Epic isn't fighting for the lit

> Epic isn't fighting for the little guy, they wanted their own store That's the point. This is also what the little guys want. Epic isn't fighting for the little guy, but they are fighting for terms that are mutually beneficial for both Epic and the little guy. For the devs who support Epic in the lawsuit, it's never directly been about the 30% cut. It's about this article, right here -- that Apple requires you to support a sign-in system that they can just turn off whenever they want, that if you get into a legal battle with Apple they can just revoke your developer certificates, that you're not allowed to mention even inside your app that alternative payment methods exist. It's about a company that purposefully gimps their browser and disallows competing engines, keeping webapps at a perpetual disadvantage to native apps. It's about the fact that if I buy an iPhone, I don't get to decide what code runs on it. People are treating this like a popularity contest, bringing up points like, "Epic is selfishly motivated." Well, of course. Both Apple and Epic are selfishly motivated, neither company cares about you. But it just so happens that in this case, the stuff Epic wants is also the stuff I want. I want the ability to run my own code on my own device I bought without asking anyone else's permission to do so. I really don't care about Epic's motivations. I understand why people disagree with me, I understand why people like Apple's walled garden, and I understand why people think that the average consumer might be too stupid to actually own their own hardware and make their own decisions. I also understand why some people think that antitrust is too heavy of a hammer, and that there are other ways to address the problem of iPhone lock-in for consumers. Heck, I even understand why some people think the monopoly is good, because it forces companies to support iPhone regardless of Apple's terms, which opens some doors to increase user privacy. I disagree with those people, but I understand them. I don't think that they all just completely irrationally hate Epic. So is it really impossible for you to understand why someone would want the ability to control what code runs on their own device they bought? Do you genuinely believe that all boils down to anti-Apple sentiment? You can't understand the other viewpoint at all? > I swear all of the comments about "I could host it myself and use stripe and pay way less" just reeks of "...you can already build such a system yourself [...]" To flip this around, I feel the same way about comments I read that are saying, "Epic should just make their own smartphone or put together a webapp if they don't want to be on the store. The market will solve this." Building a store and figuring out hosting is pretty objectively easier than building a new smartphone competitor. Apple isn't my biggest worry when I think about consumer lock-in and anti-competitive practices (hello Amazon Kindle/Audible), but there is some pretty obvious user lock-in for iPhones, and Apple is pretty obviously pushing to create more of them. There's a reason why the Apple credit card only works with iPhone, and there's a reason why Apple wants everyone to sign into 3rd-party services with Apple accounts. So when someone says, "if it was possible to build a better phone ecosysytem, someone would have done it", I feel like they're drastically oversimplifying the technical, social, and market barriers to actually competing in a smartphone market.

labcomputer 6y ago
> I understand why people disagree with me Respectfully, it feels like you don't. For example: > I understand why people think that the average consumer might be too stupid to actually own their own hardware and make their own decisions. It's not about stupidity. I like the fact that my 94-year-old grandmother (who isn't stupid, by the way) doesn't have to worry about accidentally downloading malware from the App Store on her iOS devices, and the fact that she can't be phished into side-loading the same. As long as side loading is a thing, malicious actors will trick some users into side loading malware. My grandmother has never been such an autonomous computer user as the day she got an iOS device. It's absolutely astonishing how much more agency she has as a computer user with iOS, compared to Windows and Android. She manages the device almost entirely by herself (vs. Windows/Android where a family member spent a few hours per month fixing things). Her iOS device is an actual "personal" computer, one on which she, not another family member, gets to make the decisions about which software to run. So here's the inconvenient fact for your argument: In a very real sense, my grandmother (who, I claim, is much more representative of an average user than you or I, here on Hacker News) is making more of her own decisions with more autonomy than she ever did on Windows or Android. And that new agency is enabled because of Apple's policies. > So is it really impossible for you to understand why someone would want the ability to control what code runs on their own device they bought? Do you genuinely believe that all boils down to anti-Apple sentiment? You can't understand the other viewpoint at all? It's not hard to understand why someone wants more control. It is, however, very hard for me to understand why you don't use the mobile operating system that already works the way you claim to want it to. Genuine question: Apple makes no secret of the fact that they exert a large degree of control over the ecosystem, and they have a generous return policy. If you don't hate Apple, why don't you just buy an Android device and allow those of us who like iOS the way it is to live in peace? Why are you forcing your desires on us? > the stuff Epic wants is also the stuff I want > but they are fighting for terms that are mutually beneficial for both Epic and the little guy. Epic is not fighting for mutually-beneficial terms. You can already side load on Android yet Epic is suing Google right alongside Apple. Epic doesn't want you to side load your own code--they want you to pay for someone else's code through Epic's store without paying a cut to Apple. That's it. Speaking mutually-beneficial: Sign-in with Apple, a "gimped" browser, developer restrictions, forcing IAP to go through Apple. Yes, those all all very clearly benefit Apple. But they also benefit users. It would be nice if app developers could offer their own payment platform. But what happens when a user (deservedly) asks for a refund? Apple has to say "sorry bud, we didn't process the payment, you're out of luck for using the 3rd-party IAP". So users stop trusting the platform, which hurts other developers. Remember when you stopped trusting that a product on amazon.com was actually sold by Amazon? Did that make you more or less likely to spend money on amazon.com?

labcomputer 6y ago

> I understand why people disagree with me Respectfully, it feels like you don't. For example: > I understand why people think that the average consumer might be too stupid to actually own their own hardware and make their own decisions. It's not about stupidity. I like the fact that my 94-year-old grandmother (who isn't stupid, by the way) doesn't have to worry about accidentally downloading malware from the App Store on her iOS devices, and the fact that she can't be phished into side-loading the same. As long as side loading is a thing, malicious actors will trick some users into side loading malware. My grandmother has never been such an autonomous computer user as the day she got an iOS device. It's absolutely astonishing how much more agency she has as a computer user with iOS, compared to Windows and Android. She manages the device almost entirely by herself (vs. Windows/Android where a family member spent a few hours per month fixing things). Her iOS device is an actual "personal" computer, one on which she, not another family member, gets to make the decisions about which software to run. So here's the inconvenient fact for your argument: In a very real sense, my grandmother (who, I claim, is much more representative of an average user than you or I, here on Hacker News) is making more of her own decisions with more autonomy than she ever did on Windows or Android. And that new agency is enabled because of Apple's policies. > So is it really impossible for you to understand why someone would want the ability to control what code runs on their own device they bought? Do you genuinely believe that all boils down to anti-Apple sentiment? You can't understand the other viewpoint at all? It's not hard to understand why someone wants more control. It is, however, very hard for me to understand why you don't use the mobile operating system that already works the way you claim to want it to. Genuine question: Apple makes no secret of the fact that they exert a large degree of control over the ecosystem, and they have a generous return policy. If you don't hate Apple, why don't you just buy an Android device and allow those of us who like iOS the way it is to live in peace? Why are you forcing your desires on us? > the stuff Epic wants is also the stuff I want > but they are fighting for terms that are mutually beneficial for both Epic and the little guy. Epic is not fighting for mutually-beneficial terms. You can already side load on Android yet Epic is suing Google right alongside Apple. Epic doesn't want you to side load your own code--they want you to pay for someone else's code through Epic's store without paying a cut to Apple. That's it. Speaking mutually-beneficial: Sign-in with Apple, a "gimped" browser, developer restrictions, forcing IAP to go through Apple. Yes, those all all very clearly benefit Apple. But they also benefit users. It would be nice if app developers could offer their own payment platform. But what happens when a user (deservedly) asks for a refund? Apple has to say "sorry bud, we didn't process the payment, you're out of luck for using the 3rd-party IAP". So users stop trusting the platform, which hurts other developers. Remember when you stopped trusting that a product on amazon.com was actually sold by Amazon? Did that make you more or less likely to spend money on amazon.com?