9 ms·

> > Epic Games continued to argue that Apple has an App Store monopoly and charges excessive fees, but the judge pointed out that the 30 percent rate that Apple

> > Epic Games continued to argue that Apple has an App Store monopoly and charges excessive fees, but the judge pointed out that the 30 percent rate that Apple collects is the "industry rate" collected by PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Google, and more. "It's all 30 percent and you just want to gloss over it," the judge said to Epic's lawyers. She also glossed over the fact that software can be distributed free with its own payment systems in laptop/desktop OSs like Windows, OS X, Ubuntu etc. When I paid for Sublime I didn't go into an App Store to pay for it. Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
Based on existing law, why is the laptop/desktop model inherently superior to the game console model?
- actuator 6y ago
  > Based on existing law, why is the laptop/desktop model inherently superior to the game console model? Superior for developers because their margins improve. For low margin ones like Spotify that is make or break, especially when you take into account that they are fighting with preinstalled and OS promoted incumbents in both the platforms like Apple Music which are not subjected to the same.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Your example seems particularly weird to me since Spotify's business is having extremely broad hardware support. They set up shop on everyone's platform. I'm sure desktop/laptop listening is a sizable chunk of their use but it's probably dwarfed by all the cars, phones, smart speakers, TVs.
  - xoa 6y ago
    >Superior for developers because their margins improve. First, this is debatable itself, walled gardens bring their own advantages for developers too. But second, why exactly should developers be the primary concern? There are three parties involved after all: the platform creator/maintainer, the developers, and the users. Why should users not have the choice to essentially collaborate with the platform creator to promote their interests, even at the expense of the developers? I mean, I know this is HN, and a lot of us wear developer hats. But we tend to wear user hats too, and even in many cases family (or business) support hats. Switching to one of those, developers on open platforms are often jackasses and can develop their own power imbalance vs users. Sometimes (often even!) a single particular piece software can become so vital and represent so much investment that it's much harder to substitute than even the platform itself. At that point any single user faces big hurdles vs the developer. The likes of Adobe and others have repeatedly been able to force very user hostile choices on their customer base because their customers couldn't really coordinate collective action. One thing Apple offers is a way to buy into a collective action system against developers. For many people that's not a bug, that's a feature, so complaining about how developers are "hurt" or "make less money" isn't going to sway them one bit, quite the contrary. They're generally glad when Apple tells devs their way or the highway[Android/Linux/Mac/Windows]. Of course, this concentration of power also has negative implications too in terms of censorship, inability to do some very useful creative development and utilities, potential for major harm if/when Apple goes bad, etc. But too many on HN have refused to recognize the strengths and the reasons why it's been popular and to try to find ways to incorporate some or all of those while still allowing power users/misfits/hackers to push the envelope. I think our collective disdain for many regular non-tech users is part of why we've ended up in this mess in the first place.
  - conception 6y ago
    This comment is 100% true. But for a user, especially a non technical one, a walled garden is a superior ux. Updates automatically, single stop to find anything and easy discovery, no worry of viruses/malware except in extreme circumstances, cheap apps (never seen a .99 app in the wild) etc.
    - ben-schaaf 6y ago
      Automatic updates, single stop and little worry for malware are all perfectly achievable without a walled garden. It's been a thing on Linux for ages. It even gives you the choice of how high you want your walls, whether you only trust the debian developers or a user-made aur package or anything in-between.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        And yet the only way it was successful on the mainstream was via ChromeOS and Android, which hide from userspace that they are even using the Linux kernel.
        throwaway2048 6y ago
        You are confusing "because of" with "in spite of" Where is the evidence that any of that was required?
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Apparently yes, given the amount of "Linux" developers that rather pay Apple for a UNIX desktop experience instead of making "Year of Desktop Linux" actually turn into a reality beyond the usual 2% from Steam surveys.
      - nemothekid 6y ago
        Perfectly achievable, at the expense of being an end user nightmare. The reason I'm buying an iPhone is I don't have the time to care about how high the walls should be and to ensure every app I use isn't abusing the SDK to suck up data. The reason I'm paying a premium for Apple is I'm choosing to trust them rather than trust every developer.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    In the Spotify analogy, maybe the music artists would play the role of developers here—-get squeezed for the benefit of end users and the platform owner.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Going beyond that, even if it is superior, why should the game console model be illegal?
  - threeseed 6y ago
    It's not even just the game console model. It's ANY company that offers a closed platform e.g. Shopify addons.
traveler01 6y ago
So basically what the judge is saying is that people should be able to install stuff from outside the App Store? I mean, it isn't a big deal there because you can just go purchase these stuff on other stores.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms. Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model. "I own this device, therefore I should be able to run anything I want" is an argument I can understand. "Company X invented this platform and therefore can choose what to allow to run on it" is also an argument I can understand (though I disagree). What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should.
- actuator 6y ago
  > What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. If it was upto me, I would even argue for fairer rules there. Right now, it is Apple and they are sitting on a much more important computing platform for developers in terms of value, so I am fine if companies concentrate their efforts on iOS. If a precedent comes from this that can be applied in other places, I am all for it.
- username90 6y ago
  The main selling point of game consoles are uniform hardware specs and knowing that the console can run all games released on it. That isn't true for phones.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    Maybe not in the Android case, but in the iPhone case, it is pretty much true and there are clear ways to deal with the variances in capabilities between iPhone models. It's a much more predictable platform than for PCs or even Macs.
    - username90 6y ago
      It isn't true in the iphone case either, they don't create a new appstore when they release new hardware generations so they don't check if apps works fine on older hardware nor do they guarantee that the software you buy in their appstore continues to work after updates. Instead it is up to the software provider to update things when Apple breaks their product and to inform the user of which phone can run the app.
swiley 6y ago
Furthermore the Xbox at least does let you install arbitrary unsigned software.
- djrogers 6y ago
  Citation? Last I checked this was only relevant for devices in Developer mode, and required a bunch of hackery. That is little different from installing apps on your iPhone from Xcode, which Apple also allows...
floatingatoll 6y ago
Logical successors or not, the walled garden economic model remains actively in-use and viable on gaming platforms, and has not been found to be legally unacceptable to date. What basis exists for the walled garden economic model to be decreed unlawful, whether for video games or applications or any other digital content? How would that basis be legally distinctive from the walled gardens of physical retail stores? The judge’s point is that this - “walled gardens” - is an economically sound and widely-used practice that has not previously been found to be unlawful, and therefore (likely) no basis exists to find in favor of Epic’s claims at this stage of the proceedings. (Usual disclaimer applies: I am not your lawyer, I will not prepare additional citations, please seek legal counsel before taking action based on anything written above.)
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > is an economically sound and widely-used practice that has not previously been found to be unlawful Not unlawful maybe, but unfair? I think the answer is yes. It's already happened. Being politically influential, vertically integrated, well organized, and able to negotiate cohesively as a cartel, the Seven Sisters were initially able to exert considerable power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies) Apple is more powerful, more influential, more vertically integrated and more capitalized than any of those companies.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your argument or your views, as there is only the assertion about Apple ("Apple is more powerful...") provided without any of your own views explaining how that assertion has any bearing on this matter. If you can offer any further explanation of how to connect your comment with the case under discussion, I'd love to consider it in more detail. Anyways, proceeding with the best I can offer — Do you believe that a US judge can issue a summary judgment against a defendant based solely on fairness, when based solely on case law they are not guilty of any crime? (Apple is the defendant, and US law is biased in favor of defendants in various respects.) I believe that such a finding, whether by a judge or a jury, usually results in the judgment being overturned by the appellate court. In the context of the Seven Sisters example, then, the simple-test question for finding a judicial bridge for the connection between the Seven Sisters and Apple is below. I use "without basis in law" as a superset of "unfair but not unlawful". I would hazard a guess that the answer to this question is "No." but I haven't researched it further. "In cases where the US member(s) of the Seven Sisters were defendants, did a judge or jury ever find against them without basis in law, and in such cases, were any of those judgments allowed to stand by the appellate court?"
shadowgovt 6y ago
> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. I think that's a case a person could make in a court of law, but there are also compelling cases for "It's more like a console than not" and for "It's its own thing, a separate category of computing device, which should be beholden to a separate set of rules." The App Store was one of the value-adds Apple brought to the smartphone ecosystem. In a system of heterogeneous methods to put apps on phones (if the app suite was configurable at all and not pre-loaded onto the device), Apple provided a system where they would do quality curation of the apps that were loaded on the device they made and a clean, obvious method to track the apps a person wanted on their device and install them. No complex configuration, no different-installers-for-different-apps, none of that PC-ecosystem nonsense. Along with the iPhone API (that erred on the side of performance over flexibility), it brought a strong product to market. It's possible what is offered now isn't the same thing, but I think a case could be made by a competent lawyer that the store is part of the entire product offering and makes for a better consumer product, which is what US antitrust law often hinges on (consumer harm).
zepto 6y ago
That argument is self-defeating. The argument that there is some other platform where software is distributed for free relies on that platform being comparable iOS. If it is comparable to iOS, then consumers can just choose it instead.
baconandeggs 6y ago
> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms. Yes, let's ignore the actual predecessors of smartPHONES, you know, cellPHONES. It makes our argument much easier, much.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Surely you remember the original iPhone announcement: being able to call people was only a very minor point in that presentation even then. I would bet money that the iPhone 12 announcement will not have anybody demonstrating the phone capabilities at all.
  - verisimilidude 6y ago
    You should go back and rewatch that original iPhone announcement. Phone calls were a major highlight. They did a live, on-stage conference call between Jobs, Ive, and Schiller. Jobs phoned in the infamous thousand latte order to Starbucks. Features like Visual Voicemail were heavily promoted.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      And the second-most important feature was that it played music stored locally on device.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I brought it up precisely for that phone call. You must remember what prompted it, right? Jobs didn’t go into his phone book and dial the number–he looked it up from maps. And that is precisely how people use iPhone today: they do a bunch of other things and also call sometimes. To be honest, I take more phone calls from my Mac than my iPhone.
      - verisimilidude 6y ago
        Well, yeah. The presentation showed emergent new ways to place calls. Not sure how this contradicts the original point that iPhone was an evolution of the cell phone.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

Based on existing law, why is the laptop/desktop model inherently superior to the game console model?

actuator 6y ago
> Based on existing law, why is the laptop/desktop model inherently superior to the game console model? Superior for developers because their margins improve. For low margin ones like Spotify that is make or break, especially when you take into account that they are fighting with preinstalled and OS promoted incumbents in both the platforms like Apple Music which are not subjected to the same.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Your example seems particularly weird to me since Spotify's business is having extremely broad hardware support. They set up shop on everyone's platform. I'm sure desktop/laptop listening is a sizable chunk of their use but it's probably dwarfed by all the cars, phones, smart speakers, TVs.
- xoa 6y ago
  >Superior for developers because their margins improve. First, this is debatable itself, walled gardens bring their own advantages for developers too. But second, why exactly should developers be the primary concern? There are three parties involved after all: the platform creator/maintainer, the developers, and the users. Why should users not have the choice to essentially collaborate with the platform creator to promote their interests, even at the expense of the developers? I mean, I know this is HN, and a lot of us wear developer hats. But we tend to wear user hats too, and even in many cases family (or business) support hats. Switching to one of those, developers on open platforms are often jackasses and can develop their own power imbalance vs users. Sometimes (often even!) a single particular piece software can become so vital and represent so much investment that it's much harder to substitute than even the platform itself. At that point any single user faces big hurdles vs the developer. The likes of Adobe and others have repeatedly been able to force very user hostile choices on their customer base because their customers couldn't really coordinate collective action. One thing Apple offers is a way to buy into a collective action system against developers. For many people that's not a bug, that's a feature, so complaining about how developers are "hurt" or "make less money" isn't going to sway them one bit, quite the contrary. They're generally glad when Apple tells devs their way or the highway[Android/Linux/Mac/Windows]. Of course, this concentration of power also has negative implications too in terms of censorship, inability to do some very useful creative development and utilities, potential for major harm if/when Apple goes bad, etc. But too many on HN have refused to recognize the strengths and the reasons why it's been popular and to try to find ways to incorporate some or all of those while still allowing power users/misfits/hackers to push the envelope. I think our collective disdain for many regular non-tech users is part of why we've ended up in this mess in the first place.
- conception 6y ago
  This comment is 100% true. But for a user, especially a non technical one, a walled garden is a superior ux. Updates automatically, single stop to find anything and easy discovery, no worry of viruses/malware except in extreme circumstances, cheap apps (never seen a .99 app in the wild) etc.
  - ben-schaaf 6y ago
    Automatic updates, single stop and little worry for malware are all perfectly achievable without a walled garden. It's been a thing on Linux for ages. It even gives you the choice of how high you want your walls, whether you only trust the debian developers or a user-made aur package or anything in-between.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      And yet the only way it was successful on the mainstream was via ChromeOS and Android, which hide from userspace that they are even using the Linux kernel.
      - throwaway2048 6y ago
        You are confusing "because of" with "in spite of" Where is the evidence that any of that was required?
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Apparently yes, given the amount of "Linux" developers that rather pay Apple for a UNIX desktop experience instead of making "Year of Desktop Linux" actually turn into a reality beyond the usual 2% from Steam surveys.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      Perfectly achievable, at the expense of being an end user nightmare. The reason I'm buying an iPhone is I don't have the time to care about how high the walls should be and to ensure every app I use isn't abusing the SDK to suck up data. The reason I'm paying a premium for Apple is I'm choosing to trust them rather than trust every developer.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  In the Spotify analogy, maybe the music artists would play the role of developers here—-get squeezed for the benefit of end users and the platform owner.
nodamage 6y ago
Going beyond that, even if it is superior, why should the game console model be illegal?
- threeseed 6y ago
  It's not even just the game console model. It's ANY company that offers a closed platform e.g. Shopify addons.

traveler01 6y ago

So basically what the judge is saying is that people should be able to install stuff from outside the App Store? I mean, it isn't a big deal there because you can just go purchase these stuff on other stores.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms. Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model. "I own this device, therefore I should be able to run anything I want" is an argument I can understand. "Company X invented this platform and therefore can choose what to allow to run on it" is also an argument I can understand (though I disagree). What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should.

actuator 6y ago
> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. If it was upto me, I would even argue for fairer rules there. Right now, it is Apple and they are sitting on a much more important computing platform for developers in terms of value, so I am fine if companies concentrate their efforts on iOS. If a precedent comes from this that can be applied in other places, I am all for it.
username90 6y ago
The main selling point of game consoles are uniform hardware specs and knowing that the console can run all games released on it. That isn't true for phones.
- dhosek 6y ago
  Maybe not in the Android case, but in the iPhone case, it is pretty much true and there are clear ways to deal with the variances in capabilities between iPhone models. It's a much more predictable platform than for PCs or even Macs.
  - username90 6y ago
    It isn't true in the iphone case either, they don't create a new appstore when they release new hardware generations so they don't check if apps works fine on older hardware nor do they guarantee that the software you buy in their appstore continues to work after updates. Instead it is up to the software provider to update things when Apple breaks their product and to inform the user of which phone can run the app.

swiley 6y ago

Furthermore the Xbox at least does let you install arbitrary unsigned software.

djrogers 6y ago
Citation? Last I checked this was only relevant for devices in Developer mode, and required a bunch of hackery. That is little different from installing apps on your iPhone from Xcode, which Apple also allows...

floatingatoll 6y ago

Logical successors or not, the walled garden economic model remains actively in-use and viable on gaming platforms, and has not been found to be legally unacceptable to date. What basis exists for the walled garden economic model to be decreed unlawful, whether for video games or applications or any other digital content? How would that basis be legally distinctive from the walled gardens of physical retail stores? The judge’s point is that this - “walled gardens” - is an economically sound and widely-used practice that has not previously been found to be unlawful, and therefore (likely) no basis exists to find in favor of Epic’s claims at this stage of the proceedings. (Usual disclaimer applies: I am not your lawyer, I will not prepare additional citations, please seek legal counsel before taking action based on anything written above.)

romanoderoma 6y ago
> is an economically sound and widely-used practice that has not previously been found to be unlawful Not unlawful maybe, but unfair? I think the answer is yes. It's already happened. Being politically influential, vertically integrated, well organized, and able to negotiate cohesively as a cartel, the Seven Sisters were initially able to exert considerable power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies) Apple is more powerful, more influential, more vertically integrated and more capitalized than any of those companies.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your argument or your views, as there is only the assertion about Apple ("Apple is more powerful...") provided without any of your own views explaining how that assertion has any bearing on this matter. If you can offer any further explanation of how to connect your comment with the case under discussion, I'd love to consider it in more detail. Anyways, proceeding with the best I can offer — Do you believe that a US judge can issue a summary judgment against a defendant based solely on fairness, when based solely on case law they are not guilty of any crime? (Apple is the defendant, and US law is biased in favor of defendants in various respects.) I believe that such a finding, whether by a judge or a jury, usually results in the judgment being overturned by the appellate court. In the context of the Seven Sisters example, then, the simple-test question for finding a judicial bridge for the connection between the Seven Sisters and Apple is below. I use "without basis in law" as a superset of "unfair but not unlawful". I would hazard a guess that the answer to this question is "No." but I haven't researched it further. "In cases where the US member(s) of the Seven Sisters were defendants, did a judge or jury ever find against them without basis in law, and in such cases, were any of those judgments allowed to stand by the appellate court?"

shadowgovt 6y ago

> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. I think that's a case a person could make in a court of law, but there are also compelling cases for "It's more like a console than not" and for "It's its own thing, a separate category of computing device, which should be beholden to a separate set of rules." The App Store was one of the value-adds Apple brought to the smartphone ecosystem. In a system of heterogeneous methods to put apps on phones (if the app suite was configurable at all and not pre-loaded onto the device), Apple provided a system where they would do quality curation of the apps that were loaded on the device they made and a clean, obvious method to track the apps a person wanted on their device and install them. No complex configuration, no different-installers-for-different-apps, none of that PC-ecosystem nonsense. Along with the iPhone API (that erred on the side of performance over flexibility), it brought a strong product to market. It's possible what is offered now isn't the same thing, but I think a case could be made by a competent lawyer that the store is part of the entire product offering and makes for a better consumer product, which is what US antitrust law often hinges on (consumer harm).

zepto 6y ago

That argument is self-defeating. The argument that there is some other platform where software is distributed for free relies on that platform being comparable iOS. If it is comparable to iOS, then consumers can just choose it instead.

baconandeggs 6y ago

> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms. Yes, let's ignore the actual predecessors of smartPHONES, you know, cellPHONES. It makes our argument much easier, much.

saagarjha 6y ago
Surely you remember the original iPhone announcement: being able to call people was only a very minor point in that presentation even then. I would bet money that the iPhone 12 announcement will not have anybody demonstrating the phone capabilities at all.
- verisimilidude 6y ago
  You should go back and rewatch that original iPhone announcement. Phone calls were a major highlight. They did a live, on-stage conference call between Jobs, Ive, and Schiller. Jobs phoned in the infamous thousand latte order to Starbucks. Features like Visual Voicemail were heavily promoted.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    And the second-most important feature was that it played music stored locally on device.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I brought it up precisely for that phone call. You must remember what prompted it, right? Jobs didn’t go into his phone book and dial the number–he looked it up from maps. And that is precisely how people use iPhone today: they do a bunch of other things and also call sometimes. To be honest, I take more phone calls from my Mac than my iPhone.
    - verisimilidude 6y ago
      Well, yeah. The presentation showed emergent new ways to place calls. Not sure how this contradicts the original point that iPhone was an evolution of the cell phone.