7 ms·

I find it hard to side with anyone but Apple here. Apple built not only the marketplace but the actual devices themselves. Apple is giving developers a marketpl

I find it hard to side with anyone but Apple here. Apple built not only the marketplace but the actual devices themselves. Apple is giving developers a marketplace of users with powerful processors, fast internet connections, and credit cards already connected. Installing an app is easier on a smartphone than any desktop. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair. I can't see how Epic wins this one -- not only did they agree to the contract, the contract isn't particularly outrageous, in my mind. Compare it to something like a movie theater. The movie theater gets almost no box-office revenue. Apple lets you keep most of it.

intricatedetail 6y ago
You said you side with Apple, but why? Better analogy is that Apple is a country with a single party, no elections, that dictates who can make money and how much tax they pay. These ecosystems need regulation to enable multiple stores and open APIs.
- cassteri 6y ago
  Except Apple isn’t a country, it’s a company, so this analogy is useless.
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    Do you know what is an analogy at all?
    - cassteri 6y ago
      Yea, do you?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - joenathanone 6y ago
    That is the very purpose of an analogy, to compare two unalike things.
    - cassteri 6y ago
      I understand what an analogy is, I also understand that not all analogies are valid, usually when the pretence is so heavily flawed that the analogy crumples. The analogy must be coherent, but a country and company are as alike as a fish sandwich and a turd. The usefulness of the analogy is stretched to the point of uselessness as it is here.
      - Osiris 6y ago
        > a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. the dictionary definition of the word analogy does not include those stipulations that you stated. Any explanation that compares two things meets the definition of analogy. I think you're being pedantic. You can disagree with the comparison, but that doesn't mean it can't be called an analogy.
        cassteri 6y ago
        My parent comment states the analogy is useless, not that it can’t be called an analogy. It’s an analogy, just not a logically coherent one.
        Osiris 6y ago
        I must have misread or misunderstood the comment before responding. I apologize.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Apple a country.. there's alternatives out there and nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, which is vastly different from a country, where you are forced to abide by its laws and pay its taxes. It's almost an absurd analogy. If I was to make an analogy, I might say Walmart is a better analogy. Walmart is the biggest store in town, but you do have alternatives and nobody is forcing you to shop there, even if it's kind of hard not to. Walmart does all the legwork of getting customers into the shop, then puts other companies' products on its shelves and sells them for a markup. Their markup? Pretty similar to Apple's fee, roughly 25%.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > there's alternatives out there and nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone In what way is this different than a country or a state? Nobody is forcing you to live in California, you could sell your house and get a different job and a different social cohort and move to Florida. Nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, you could sell your phone and replace all your apps and convince everyone you know to switch away from iMessage. > where you are forced to abide by its laws and pay its taxes. How are you distinguishing the app store rules and fees from laws and taxes? > Walmart is the biggest store in town, but you do have alternatives and nobody is forcing you to shop there, even if it's kind of hard not to. Walmart doesn't own all the real estate for a hundred miles and then prohibit anyone else from building a store that people who shop at Walmart could reasonably patronize. They don't condition your use of their store on buying their car, which in turn refuses to let you drive to any other store, so that if you want/need any product from Walmart you have to get every product from there. > Their markup? Pretty similar to Apple's fee, roughly 25%. For a brick and mortar store which is paying for local real estate, physical inventory and human cashiers, none of which Apple does and yet they're still charging higher fees.
    - shepik 6y ago
      > you could sell your house But you can't sell apps when you switch platforms, so not really sure how this country/state analogy helps
- turtlebits 6y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with App store policies, especially when it comes to transparency/consistency of decisions, but you can always choose not to operate/do business in said country.
  - zakki 6y ago
    So people who love their country but see the problem can’t change it? Instead they have to leave the country?
Animats 6y ago
That argument is like the railroad antitrust cases of a century ago. "The New York Central Railroad is giving shippers a marketplace of users with large freight terinals, fast locomotives, and railroad sidings already connected. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair." (If you think Comcast is bad, read up on the history of railroad monopolies.)
- kstrauser 6y ago
  One report shows Apple as having about 14% of the world smart phone market share in 2020, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Apple's control over their App Store doesn't prevent Android users from using the Google Play Store, whereas the New York Central Railroad's ownership of freight terminals and rail lines prevents other people from building their own (because there are only so many places you can put a freight terminal or a rail line).
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    They have more than 50% in the US. And it's important to note that antitrust law doesn't just cover monopolies, as people endlessly bring up in google related threads. These laws also cover the abuse of market power, which while related to monopoly is not exclusively derived from monopoly.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    The handset market is a bogus statistic. Epic are not selling phones or phone accessories. The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold for regulatory attention in many jurisdictions. As for taking sides, I recommend taking the consumer's side, since the consumer is thoroughly shat upon by Apple's rules. The agreement demands that merchants on the Apple platform actively mislead the consumer about their purchasing options. At that point, whatever one may think of Epic's preferences, motives, or ethics, becomes moot. It is not unlawful to hold market power, or to use it for profit, but it is unlawful (at least where I live) to wield market power to mislead the consumer, and that's where Apple slides off the rails. However by taking direct action, Epic have the burden of proof, unless a governmental regulator decides to shoulder it first. Of course none of this actually relates to the judgement in the article, which is about Apple's embarrassingly nonsensical counterclaims, amounting to "competing with Apple shouldn't be allowed at all because then we make less money". I struggle to comprehend the magnitude of over-entitled, self-absorbed groupthink that could lead to making such a claim with a straight face.
franczesko 6y ago
The problem is that Apple considers users of their hardware as their clients. In reality they're Epic's customers, not Apple's. It would be as silly as asking website owners to pay Apple, just because of the fact, that visitors came in with Safari browser.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  This is the thought process I somewhat have of the issue as well. It's as if Comcast tried charging web businesses for the privilege to serve their customers. Meanwhile, they wouldn't be allowed to charge them if these sites didn't exist in the first place. Apple made the platform, but they can't piss off the developers. Otherwise they're just going to alienate people and possibly major players to challenge them more or invest in other areas that don't take so much off of them. Apples Appstore becomes worthless the moment nobody supplies any worthwhile software...WHICH Apple needs.
  - wmf 6y ago
    It's as if Comcast tried charging web businesses for the privilege to serve their customers. Wait until you hear about intentional congestion, paid peering, and Netflix. https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/ https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t...
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
      Netflix could've easily gotten a coalition to fight that in court. They didn't because they're a major player in the market. Doing this helps drive out competitive streaming platforms when the cable providers begin gouging them. That's why they also coughed up to the others access providers without them doing the same thing as Comcast. They're just playing pretend as a victim. They want people to believe what they're doing is right. In actuality their hedging to become the next version of Cable TV. With how bad Disney's revenue has been going this year, I wouldn't be surprised that if they keep taking hits like this, we could potentially see an acquisition or merger between the two.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
This wouldn't be an issue if Apple wasn't taking a flat cut of 30% off of everything. It doesn't matter what they provide. 30% is like a government level tax. That should just scream how much influence and power Apple has if they can charge something so egregious.
horsawlarway 6y ago
I say this bluntly - You sound like an apple fanboy who has no idea what the current state of software distribution is on most platforms. That aside - You're missing the forest for the trees. No one is saying Apple is not providing a service, no one is arguing that they shouldn't be able to charge what they want for that service. Everyone is saying that it's bullshit that Apple is the only service you can pick if your users are on iOS. Basically - Why is it fair for apple to arbitrarily prevent the installation of any competing distribution methods? Because from my perspective - It doesn't matter how great you think Apple's services are, you can't have an honest and informed opinion when they only ever let you see that one walled garden. Epic is literally in the same market - They have a store, they developed a distribution channel, they paid developers, designers, QA, support, etc. But Apple has said "Nice store you've spent all that money building, such a shame we've decided we won't allow you to use it on an iPhone."
- thehappypm 6y ago
  It might not seem fair as a developer, but as an iPhone user, I don't have any problem with all my apps coming from one trusted store. Just compare it to Windows. Apps can still be downloaded in several inconsistent ways, and it's hard to trust applications you download arbitrarily.
  - horsawlarway 6y ago
    So continue to use the Apple store and you have no problems. App not on the Apple store? Don't use the app. So simple. --- I bet your first response to that statement isn't positive - Now reflect that this is exactly what Apple is saying to developers. "Don't want to use our store? Don't release on iOS." Because right now, if you use an application on iOS, you are not a customer of that application. You are an Apple customer who happens to use a product resold by Apple. Now - I have no problem with you preferring that arrangement, and I'm certainly not suggesting removing the Apple app store. I'm just saying it feels a tad like bullshit. Maybe entirely like bullshit. Actually - Nope, it's just bullshit.
    - 6y ago

intricatedetail 6y ago

You said you side with Apple, but why? Better analogy is that Apple is a country with a single party, no elections, that dictates who can make money and how much tax they pay. These ecosystems need regulation to enable multiple stores and open APIs.

cassteri 6y ago
Except Apple isn’t a country, it’s a company, so this analogy is useless.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  Do you know what is an analogy at all?
  - cassteri 6y ago
    Yea, do you?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- joenathanone 6y ago
  That is the very purpose of an analogy, to compare two unalike things.
  - cassteri 6y ago
    I understand what an analogy is, I also understand that not all analogies are valid, usually when the pretence is so heavily flawed that the analogy crumples. The analogy must be coherent, but a country and company are as alike as a fish sandwich and a turd. The usefulness of the analogy is stretched to the point of uselessness as it is here.
    - Osiris 6y ago
      > a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. the dictionary definition of the word analogy does not include those stipulations that you stated. Any explanation that compares two things meets the definition of analogy. I think you're being pedantic. You can disagree with the comparison, but that doesn't mean it can't be called an analogy.
      - cassteri 6y ago
        My parent comment states the analogy is useless, not that it can’t be called an analogy. It’s an analogy, just not a logically coherent one.
        Osiris 6y ago
        I must have misread or misunderstood the comment before responding. I apologize.
thehappypm 6y ago
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Apple a country.. there's alternatives out there and nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, which is vastly different from a country, where you are forced to abide by its laws and pay its taxes. It's almost an absurd analogy. If I was to make an analogy, I might say Walmart is a better analogy. Walmart is the biggest store in town, but you do have alternatives and nobody is forcing you to shop there, even if it's kind of hard not to. Walmart does all the legwork of getting customers into the shop, then puts other companies' products on its shelves and sells them for a markup. Their markup? Pretty similar to Apple's fee, roughly 25%.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > there's alternatives out there and nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone In what way is this different than a country or a state? Nobody is forcing you to live in California, you could sell your house and get a different job and a different social cohort and move to Florida. Nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, you could sell your phone and replace all your apps and convince everyone you know to switch away from iMessage. > where you are forced to abide by its laws and pay its taxes. How are you distinguishing the app store rules and fees from laws and taxes? > Walmart is the biggest store in town, but you do have alternatives and nobody is forcing you to shop there, even if it's kind of hard not to. Walmart doesn't own all the real estate for a hundred miles and then prohibit anyone else from building a store that people who shop at Walmart could reasonably patronize. They don't condition your use of their store on buying their car, which in turn refuses to let you drive to any other store, so that if you want/need any product from Walmart you have to get every product from there. > Their markup? Pretty similar to Apple's fee, roughly 25%. For a brick and mortar store which is paying for local real estate, physical inventory and human cashiers, none of which Apple does and yet they're still charging higher fees.
  - shepik 6y ago
    > you could sell your house But you can't sell apps when you switch platforms, so not really sure how this country/state analogy helps
turtlebits 6y ago
I don't necessarily agree with App store policies, especially when it comes to transparency/consistency of decisions, but you can always choose not to operate/do business in said country.
- zakki 6y ago
  So people who love their country but see the problem can’t change it? Instead they have to leave the country?

Animats 6y ago

That argument is like the railroad antitrust cases of a century ago. "The New York Central Railroad is giving shippers a marketplace of users with large freight terinals, fast locomotives, and railroad sidings already connected. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair." (If you think Comcast is bad, read up on the history of railroad monopolies.)

kstrauser 6y ago
One report shows Apple as having about 14% of the world smart phone market share in 2020, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Apple's control over their App Store doesn't prevent Android users from using the Google Play Store, whereas the New York Central Railroad's ownership of freight terminals and rail lines prevents other people from building their own (because there are only so many places you can put a freight terminal or a rail line).
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  They have more than 50% in the US. And it's important to note that antitrust law doesn't just cover monopolies, as people endlessly bring up in google related threads. These laws also cover the abuse of market power, which while related to monopoly is not exclusively derived from monopoly.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  The handset market is a bogus statistic. Epic are not selling phones or phone accessories. The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold for regulatory attention in many jurisdictions. As for taking sides, I recommend taking the consumer's side, since the consumer is thoroughly shat upon by Apple's rules. The agreement demands that merchants on the Apple platform actively mislead the consumer about their purchasing options. At that point, whatever one may think of Epic's preferences, motives, or ethics, becomes moot. It is not unlawful to hold market power, or to use it for profit, but it is unlawful (at least where I live) to wield market power to mislead the consumer, and that's where Apple slides off the rails. However by taking direct action, Epic have the burden of proof, unless a governmental regulator decides to shoulder it first. Of course none of this actually relates to the judgement in the article, which is about Apple's embarrassingly nonsensical counterclaims, amounting to "competing with Apple shouldn't be allowed at all because then we make less money". I struggle to comprehend the magnitude of over-entitled, self-absorbed groupthink that could lead to making such a claim with a straight face.

franczesko 6y ago

The problem is that Apple considers users of their hardware as their clients. In reality they're Epic's customers, not Apple's. It would be as silly as asking website owners to pay Apple, just because of the fact, that visitors came in with Safari browser.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
This is the thought process I somewhat have of the issue as well. It's as if Comcast tried charging web businesses for the privilege to serve their customers. Meanwhile, they wouldn't be allowed to charge them if these sites didn't exist in the first place. Apple made the platform, but they can't piss off the developers. Otherwise they're just going to alienate people and possibly major players to challenge them more or invest in other areas that don't take so much off of them. Apples Appstore becomes worthless the moment nobody supplies any worthwhile software...WHICH Apple needs.
- wmf 6y ago
  It's as if Comcast tried charging web businesses for the privilege to serve their customers. Wait until you hear about intentional congestion, paid peering, and Netflix. https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/ https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t...
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    Netflix could've easily gotten a coalition to fight that in court. They didn't because they're a major player in the market. Doing this helps drive out competitive streaming platforms when the cable providers begin gouging them. That's why they also coughed up to the others access providers without them doing the same thing as Comcast. They're just playing pretend as a victim. They want people to believe what they're doing is right. In actuality their hedging to become the next version of Cable TV. With how bad Disney's revenue has been going this year, I wouldn't be surprised that if they keep taking hits like this, we could potentially see an acquisition or merger between the two.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

This wouldn't be an issue if Apple wasn't taking a flat cut of 30% off of everything. It doesn't matter what they provide. 30% is like a government level tax. That should just scream how much influence and power Apple has if they can charge something so egregious.

horsawlarway 6y ago

I say this bluntly - You sound like an apple fanboy who has no idea what the current state of software distribution is on most platforms. That aside - You're missing the forest for the trees. No one is saying Apple is not providing a service, no one is arguing that they shouldn't be able to charge what they want for that service. Everyone is saying that it's bullshit that Apple is the only service you can pick if your users are on iOS. Basically - Why is it fair for apple to arbitrarily prevent the installation of any competing distribution methods? Because from my perspective - It doesn't matter how great you think Apple's services are, you can't have an honest and informed opinion when they only ever let you see that one walled garden. Epic is literally in the same market - They have a store, they developed a distribution channel, they paid developers, designers, QA, support, etc. But Apple has said "Nice store you've spent all that money building, such a shame we've decided we won't allow you to use it on an iPhone."

thehappypm 6y ago
It might not seem fair as a developer, but as an iPhone user, I don't have any problem with all my apps coming from one trusted store. Just compare it to Windows. Apps can still be downloaded in several inconsistent ways, and it's hard to trust applications you download arbitrarily.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  So continue to use the Apple store and you have no problems. App not on the Apple store? Don't use the app. So simple. --- I bet your first response to that statement isn't positive - Now reflect that this is exactly what Apple is saying to developers. "Don't want to use our store? Don't release on iOS." Because right now, if you use an application on iOS, you are not a customer of that application. You are an Apple customer who happens to use a product resold by Apple. Now - I have no problem with you preferring that arrangement, and I'm certainly not suggesting removing the Apple app store. I'm just saying it feels a tad like bullshit. Maybe entirely like bullshit. Actually - Nope, it's just bullshit.
  - 6y ago