8 ms·

So I guess there will be no outcry when Microsoft starts charging the alleged "industry rate" to allow programs to run on Windows.

sem000 6y ago
Apple has been charging since they allowed third party access to App Store. Quite different in this case. Epic and consumers know what they’re getting into with Apple.
- codegladiator 6y ago
  And now everyone should know what they are getting into with any of these stores that 30% is normal. Fight back is futile. Just makes microsoft look like stupid business guys not charging 30% yet.
- krzyk 6y ago
  First, they don't charge everyone 30% (have you seen the emails between Amazon and Apple?). Second, why break up AT&T in 70s/80s, you know what you are getting into when you sing up a contract with them.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    The difference was that AT&T had a monopoly because of the government. They had a real monopoly. They were the only game in town.
    - krzyk 6y ago
      Really? Didn't US have a mail service at that time? I think that is an alternative "platform" for communication (just like Android to Apple), a bit of a stretch but not much.
      - sem000 6y ago
        Are you really comparing using a phone vs mail, to using iOS vs Android, or any other phone out on the market?
        krzyk 6y ago
        I'm showing that argument that iOS AppStore is not a monopoly because "If you don't like closed iPhone you can buy Android" is ridiculous. Of course you have alternative hardware+os that you can use, just like in case of telephony you had alternative hardware (paper) that you could use, which didn't stop US goverment to split AT&T up.
        scarface74 6y ago
        What can’t I do as efficiently on an Android device that I can do on an iPhone?
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      The FTC has a nice site that makes it clear that antitrust enforcement doesn't require a government-mandated or absolute monopoly. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... ETA: Fixed wrong link.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Well, you can quote the nice site from the FTC and provide your own interpretation. Or You can read the interpretation in this specific case from the judge who is presiding over it.
        matthewdgreen 6y ago
        The "interpretation" in this case is just a few skeptical comments made in a hearing by the judge. And her comments mostly seem to address Epic's (dis)honesty in describing its motivation, they are not some deep statement on the foundation of antitrust law. The case is going to a jury trial.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Well, whose interpretation of the law should get more credence - yours or the judges?
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        Initial remarks do not constitute a decided interpretation.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Wouldn’t you say that it is a more accurate representation than a random person on HN?
        6y ago
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    Smae with Microsoft and internet explorer. People could just choose not to buy windows. I guess anti trust laws have changed in the interim.
nicoburns 6y ago
I wonder if that would enough to push companies like Adobe to make a linux version.
charliemil4 6y ago
You can still distribute a Mac App outside of the App Store, without a fee. It's pretty clear, as I think is Apple's strategy, that there is a line between Mac and iOS when it comes to possible use cases. I'm curious to know what they plan to do with iPad OS though... the MacCatalyst and Swift UI strategy will be interesting to watch evolve in light of these challenges.
indigochill 6y ago
The rate is irrelevant to the question of Epic vs Apple. In their case, Apple had terms already in place which Epic agreed to in order to develop on their platform. Epic then decided to try to defy those same terms by challenging them in court. The judge pointed out that's not how T&Cs work. If Microsoft introduces wiOS (Or OS W?) in which you can only run applications you install through an app store, then users and developers will decide whether that's an experience they want and if it is, then an ecosystem will develop around it just as happened with Apple. If not, it will just be an expensive lesson for Microsoft while everyone remains on their preferred OS. If it turns out all major OSes lock their users into app stores and there remains a significant market for users who don't want that experience, the market will be primed for another OS competitor to take that share.
- thunderbong 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but you make it sound very trivial to create an OS. I don't think there's a level playing field there.
  - wokwokwok 6y ago
    ? huh? We’re literally talking about Microsoft here. Of all people, Microsoft could do it. They have before. A Windows X with a appstore only would be a trivial variant for them. Either way, it’s irrelevant to the parent comment: if you agree to the terms, they willfully defy them... well, you’re violating your commercial agreement. What next, I sue amazon for discontinuing my AWS services when I start running spambots on it or some other willfull violation of their avceptable use policy [1]? Its ridiculous. The only ones winning here are lawyers. [1] - yes, they do have one, and you will get suspended if you violate it. https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      Microsoft windows on mobile failed. One of the biggest reason was lack of external services and apps. If Adobe stop working on MacBooks, they won't be lucrative to many people anymore. And Adobe won't build for an OS without users. It's the same problem as social media but worse. Early market movers have an advantage and that will keep growing. Another reason why many hospital systems, military, etc department pays microsoft to support XP. Those OS aren't "better". Most people using them won't choose them over windows 10 or Mac if given the option.
Spivak 6y ago
Oh there will be an outcry of angry developers the magnitude of which has never been seen before but I also think that MS should be legally allowed to do it.
shadowgovt 6y ago
If Microsoft wants to start doing that in their app store, I don't see why they couldn't. But they'd be competing with all the other app stores available for buying PC software (as well as physical stores selling physical media). But Microsoft doesn't make hardware that's the only target for their desktop OS, so they don't have the market lock-in Apple does, nor could they claim the app store and the hardware they don't make are part of the same product for PCs running Windows. In contrast? They already do this for the XBox Live store, where they are the sole online distribution channel for software running on the console they manufacture.
swebs 6y ago
They've already begun the process. There's a "Windows 10 S mode" that when enabled, only allows running programs downloaded from the Microsoft store.

sem000 6y ago

Apple has been charging since they allowed third party access to App Store. Quite different in this case. Epic and consumers know what they’re getting into with Apple.

codegladiator 6y ago
And now everyone should know what they are getting into with any of these stores that 30% is normal. Fight back is futile. Just makes microsoft look like stupid business guys not charging 30% yet.
krzyk 6y ago
First, they don't charge everyone 30% (have you seen the emails between Amazon and Apple?). Second, why break up AT&T in 70s/80s, you know what you are getting into when you sing up a contract with them.
- scarface74 6y ago
  The difference was that AT&T had a monopoly because of the government. They had a real monopoly. They were the only game in town.
  - krzyk 6y ago
    Really? Didn't US have a mail service at that time? I think that is an alternative "platform" for communication (just like Android to Apple), a bit of a stretch but not much.
    - sem000 6y ago
      Are you really comparing using a phone vs mail, to using iOS vs Android, or any other phone out on the market?
      - krzyk 6y ago
        I'm showing that argument that iOS AppStore is not a monopoly because "If you don't like closed iPhone you can buy Android" is ridiculous. Of course you have alternative hardware+os that you can use, just like in case of telephony you had alternative hardware (paper) that you could use, which didn't stop US goverment to split AT&T up.
        scarface74 6y ago
        What can’t I do as efficiently on an Android device that I can do on an iPhone?
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    The FTC has a nice site that makes it clear that antitrust enforcement doesn't require a government-mandated or absolute monopoly. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... ETA: Fixed wrong link.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Well, you can quote the nice site from the FTC and provide your own interpretation. Or You can read the interpretation in this specific case from the judge who is presiding over it.
      - matthewdgreen 6y ago
        The "interpretation" in this case is just a few skeptical comments made in a hearing by the judge. And her comments mostly seem to address Epic's (dis)honesty in describing its motivation, they are not some deep statement on the foundation of antitrust law. The case is going to a jury trial.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Well, whose interpretation of the law should get more credence - yours or the judges?
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        Initial remarks do not constitute a decided interpretation.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Wouldn’t you say that it is a more accurate representation than a random person on HN?
        6y ago
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Smae with Microsoft and internet explorer. People could just choose not to buy windows. I guess anti trust laws have changed in the interim.

nicoburns 6y ago

I wonder if that would enough to push companies like Adobe to make a linux version.

charliemil4 6y ago

You can still distribute a Mac App outside of the App Store, without a fee. It's pretty clear, as I think is Apple's strategy, that there is a line between Mac and iOS when it comes to possible use cases. I'm curious to know what they plan to do with iPad OS though... the MacCatalyst and Swift UI strategy will be interesting to watch evolve in light of these challenges.

indigochill 6y ago

The rate is irrelevant to the question of Epic vs Apple. In their case, Apple had terms already in place which Epic agreed to in order to develop on their platform. Epic then decided to try to defy those same terms by challenging them in court. The judge pointed out that's not how T&Cs work. If Microsoft introduces wiOS (Or OS W?) in which you can only run applications you install through an app store, then users and developers will decide whether that's an experience they want and if it is, then an ecosystem will develop around it just as happened with Apple. If not, it will just be an expensive lesson for Microsoft while everyone remains on their preferred OS. If it turns out all major OSes lock their users into app stores and there remains a significant market for users who don't want that experience, the market will be primed for another OS competitor to take that share.

thunderbong 6y ago
I'm sorry, but you make it sound very trivial to create an OS. I don't think there's a level playing field there.
- wokwokwok 6y ago
  ? huh? We’re literally talking about Microsoft here. Of all people, Microsoft could do it. They have before. A Windows X with a appstore only would be a trivial variant for them. Either way, it’s irrelevant to the parent comment: if you agree to the terms, they willfully defy them... well, you’re violating your commercial agreement. What next, I sue amazon for discontinuing my AWS services when I start running spambots on it or some other willfull violation of their avceptable use policy [1]? Its ridiculous. The only ones winning here are lawyers. [1] - yes, they do have one, and you will get suspended if you violate it. https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    Microsoft windows on mobile failed. One of the biggest reason was lack of external services and apps. If Adobe stop working on MacBooks, they won't be lucrative to many people anymore. And Adobe won't build for an OS without users. It's the same problem as social media but worse. Early market movers have an advantage and that will keep growing. Another reason why many hospital systems, military, etc department pays microsoft to support XP. Those OS aren't "better". Most people using them won't choose them over windows 10 or Mac if given the option.

Spivak 6y ago

Oh there will be an outcry of angry developers the magnitude of which has never been seen before but I also think that MS should be legally allowed to do it.

shadowgovt 6y ago

If Microsoft wants to start doing that in their app store, I don't see why they couldn't. But they'd be competing with all the other app stores available for buying PC software (as well as physical stores selling physical media). But Microsoft doesn't make hardware that's the only target for their desktop OS, so they don't have the market lock-in Apple does, nor could they claim the app store and the hardware they don't make are part of the same product for PCs running Windows. In contrast? They already do this for the XBox Live store, where they are the sole online distribution channel for software running on the console they manufacture.

swebs 6y ago

They've already begun the process. There's a "Windows 10 S mode" that when enabled, only allows running programs downloaded from the Microsoft store.