3 ms·

It's beyond scope of a hacker news comment for me, but Epic case against Apple/Google store distribution terms is sufficiently different IMO. How exactly would

by giobox 6y ago

It's beyond scope of a hacker news comment for me, but Epic case against Apple/Google store distribution terms is sufficiently different IMO. How exactly would Epic ship this open platform when Google and Apple expressly control what apps run and do not? From where I stand, without intervention their only option is inferior browser based streaming solutions like this: https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/5/21551152/fortnite-nvidia-geforce-now-game-streaming-to-iphone-ipad https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/5/21551152/fortnite-nvidia-... Courts are worth a gamble, worst case scenario Epic is back where it began (minus the legal fees of course), paying Apple/Google 30 percent and still selling plenty of software on the app stores. The Epic case also works to serve Epic's wider public agenda against app stores as litigation theatre too if nothing else.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
By open platform I meant they they should release their own phone. I believe they could do it for not much more than the price of the lawsuit. The iPhone is not even a general purpose computer, it's a brick of consumer electronics that just happens to have an app store on it. It's Apples house and they get to make the rules. If Epic doesn't like it they can build their own house, or they can contribute to a house that is free for everybody. I see Valve contributing to an open house that is free for everybody just in case Microsoft stops inviting 3rd parties into their house.
- giobox 6y ago
  Good luck _selling_ that phone to the hundreds of millions of users you lost immediately overnight, to users already perfectly happy with the phone they have. Your customers aren't going to pickup the tab just because you didn't like the distribution terms you had already willingly agreed to on iOS/Google app stores, and its a big tab. A new phone isn't cheap for most. I am also completely ignoring the fact building a competitive phone is likely really hard and Epic have no track record there. I'd love to be proved wrong of course - who doesn't like a cool new tech platform succeeding? Being realistic though, there isn't exactly a long list of new mobile hardware/OS platforms launching at the scale and success Epic would need to replace lost iOS/Android revenue. In fact, no one has ever managed to do that really! That Epic have already partnered with Nvidia to use browser streaming tech to get Fortnite back onto iOS suggest similar thinking to me. Epic's own lawyers are making similar arguments right now too. Imagine if every railway company had to build it own tracks, or every airline needed its own airports. Conceptually, app stores on mobile platforms are increasingly similar. It's not practical to keep building more airports and more track networks, especially when in this case the airport or network is a handset the customer has to buy. The railway example is one Courts had to deal with in early 20th century in a lot of countries, same too for shipping ports.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    I don't have much sympathy for anybody who helped Google and Apple into the monopoly position by making their products available on those platforms. If we all banded together and made sure that all the best apps were only available on a truly open phone platform then everybody would buy a phone on that platform. Epic could pump a few million into making sure their games ran well on Linux platforms, then partner with Asus, Razer, and others to make Gaming Phones a real thing with support for Linux on those phones. (or a Google free Android if that will lower the bar). I think the railways and airports are not a good analogy because those are physical things that need a lot of land. (and investment) We are just talking about software, and what we can and cannot run on our phones.
    - giobox 6y ago
      You are shipping "bits" to phones, just as boats and trains shipped cargo to stations and ports. Its fundamentally analogous as a legal argument; whether it's corporeal items being moved (physical goods) or not doesn't really matter. The principle is the same. I cannot ever advise a company like Epic to burn its business model overnight on a such a huge risk as you suggest, I'm sure many would agree. You of course are free to continue to disagree and advocate for a new Epic phone platform to sell. Epic today have 116 million users by their count playing Fortnite on an iOS device. That's a lot of users to convince to pay likely at least several hundred dollars to move to a platform that doesn't exist yet. I didn't even bother to look up the Android count, the iOS user base is enough to illustrate why this is likely a pretty bad business decision.
yellowapple 6y ago
> How exactly would Epic ship this open platform when Google and Apple expressly control what apps run and do not? By sidestepping Google's Play Store and encouraging sideloading (whether by directly downloading a game's .apk or by pushing an alternative app store like what Amazon and F-Droid do), for one. That is: any Android ROM that allows sideloading (which, last I checked, is most of them) is already that "open platform" (in the Windows sense of not restricting what software runs on it, rather than the free software sense).

by giobox 6y ago

jay_kyburz 6y ago

By open platform I meant they they should release their own phone. I believe they could do it for not much more than the price of the lawsuit. The iPhone is not even a general purpose computer, it's a brick of consumer electronics that just happens to have an app store on it. It's Apples house and they get to make the rules. If Epic doesn't like it they can build their own house, or they can contribute to a house that is free for everybody. I see Valve contributing to an open house that is free for everybody just in case Microsoft stops inviting 3rd parties into their house.

giobox 6y ago
Good luck _selling_ that phone to the hundreds of millions of users you lost immediately overnight, to users already perfectly happy with the phone they have. Your customers aren't going to pickup the tab just because you didn't like the distribution terms you had already willingly agreed to on iOS/Google app stores, and its a big tab. A new phone isn't cheap for most. I am also completely ignoring the fact building a competitive phone is likely really hard and Epic have no track record there. I'd love to be proved wrong of course - who doesn't like a cool new tech platform succeeding? Being realistic though, there isn't exactly a long list of new mobile hardware/OS platforms launching at the scale and success Epic would need to replace lost iOS/Android revenue. In fact, no one has ever managed to do that really! That Epic have already partnered with Nvidia to use browser streaming tech to get Fortnite back onto iOS suggest similar thinking to me. Epic's own lawyers are making similar arguments right now too. Imagine if every railway company had to build it own tracks, or every airline needed its own airports. Conceptually, app stores on mobile platforms are increasingly similar. It's not practical to keep building more airports and more track networks, especially when in this case the airport or network is a handset the customer has to buy. The railway example is one Courts had to deal with in early 20th century in a lot of countries, same too for shipping ports.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  I don't have much sympathy for anybody who helped Google and Apple into the monopoly position by making their products available on those platforms. If we all banded together and made sure that all the best apps were only available on a truly open phone platform then everybody would buy a phone on that platform. Epic could pump a few million into making sure their games ran well on Linux platforms, then partner with Asus, Razer, and others to make Gaming Phones a real thing with support for Linux on those phones. (or a Google free Android if that will lower the bar). I think the railways and airports are not a good analogy because those are physical things that need a lot of land. (and investment) We are just talking about software, and what we can and cannot run on our phones.
  - giobox 6y ago
    You are shipping "bits" to phones, just as boats and trains shipped cargo to stations and ports. Its fundamentally analogous as a legal argument; whether it's corporeal items being moved (physical goods) or not doesn't really matter. The principle is the same. I cannot ever advise a company like Epic to burn its business model overnight on a such a huge risk as you suggest, I'm sure many would agree. You of course are free to continue to disagree and advocate for a new Epic phone platform to sell. Epic today have 116 million users by their count playing Fortnite on an iOS device. That's a lot of users to convince to pay likely at least several hundred dollars to move to a platform that doesn't exist yet. I didn't even bother to look up the Android count, the iOS user base is enough to illustrate why this is likely a pretty bad business decision.

yellowapple 6y ago

> How exactly would Epic ship this open platform when Google and Apple expressly control what apps run and do not? By sidestepping Google's Play Store and encouraging sideloading (whether by directly downloading a game's .apk or by pushing an alternative app store like what Amazon and F-Droid do), for one. That is: any Android ROM that allows sideloading (which, last I checked, is most of them) is already that "open platform" (in the Windows sense of not restricting what software runs on it, rather than the free software sense).