4 ms·
Apple did not pick a fight. Epic did by explicitly doing something to knowingly break the rules to cause this issue and even had a heavily produced marketing vi
by heavymark 6y ago
Apple did not pick a fight. Epic did by explicitly doing something to knowingly break the rules to cause this issue and even had a heavily produced marketing video about it prepared day one. While people can debate the value of what is provided for 30% cut, intentionally breaking the rules / picking a fight has consequences that were laid out ahead of time.
- brailsafe 6y agoSo... Apple did pick a fight. Consequences might never be the same.
- EastSmith 6y agoEpic did not pick a fight. Apple did by introducing the 30% tax in the first place and then keep sticking with the 30% tax on everything when everyone have already realized that that tax is not normal.
- dbt00 6y agoAgain, how much does playstation, xbox, steam and google play charge?
- Terretta 6y agoApple didn’t “introduce” a 30% “tax”. Apple looked around at mobile marketplaces charging 70%, and undercut them by matching the cost structure of other vertically integrated digital storefronts while adding a tremendous number of customer “peace of mind” features that shifted the value proposition and generated — and still generate — far more revenue per user than competing offerings.
- Aeolos 6y agoExactly. Those marketplaces were a monopoly, and opening up competition helped the consumer. Now apple is an oligopoly, and opening up competition will help the consumer.
- aixi 6y agothe 'tax' has been there since before Fortnite even existed
- generalk 6y agoHN: Move fast, break things! Disrupt markets by ignoring rules the stodgy old-economy bound itself by! Epic: We should be allowed to offer purchase methods on iOS that don't go through Apple. HN: No, not like that.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoIt could be argued Apple created an illegal rules which require a violation to raise them in the justice system
- ubermonkey 6y agoI mean, it could also be argued that the moon is made of green cheese, with roughly equal fidelity to real life.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoSo the possibility of Apple's rules being illegal is equivalent to the moon being made of cheese? I used the phrase "can be argued" because I think the idea has enough merit to warrant being tested in court. These companies certainly have enough money and market influence to justify exploring it.
- ubermonkey 6y agoI have yet to see any serious, respectable theory under which Apple's App Store rules would be illegal AT ALL. People keep yammering about "monopoly," but they have no such thing. Closed platforms with rules for participation are utterly normal and utterly legal. (What's really amazing is the arguments I see -- presumably from either very young or very ill-informed people -- that this is "just like" Microsoft in the 90s.)
- ascagnel_ 6y agoA judge should be the one to decide if the rules are valid or not. But, for now, this action is entirely on Epic. Epic broke the rules, Apple (and the court, for that matter) said that they would continue to sign and publish Epic's Fortnite updates if they brought Fortnite back in line with their contract, and Epic not only refused to do so, they submitted more Fortnite updates that broke the rules, before eventually entirely removing Apple's IAP from the iOS version of Fortnite (just before Epic's developer account was banned). One other thing to consider: even if the IAP rules are invalid, Apple still can decide who it wants to do business with (unless the court rules iOS an essential facility, which basically invalidates the entire closed ecosystem business model, which would really up-end the tech world).