4 ms·

All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. The only claim one could make is “hey, 30

All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. The only claim one could make is “hey, 30% seems a bit high to do business there”. Yet Apple can claim that you pay a premium to get access to millions of consumers which they’ve cultivated a strong relationship with. Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple.

kbenson 6y ago
> All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. What? You can put a BMW engine in another car, you can put another engine in a BMW. BMW does not make it so that you can't use other engines or parts. This is nothing like BMW. I don't know about Tesla, but I suspect it's more a matter of others not making engines that fit the spec than it being explicitly designed to not allow other engines, but I really don't know enough about them to so. > Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. The running of it is always easy. Getting to the point it's successful is hard, because it requires many other things to go right. > This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple. What are you talking about? Epic is specifically bringing suit so they can run their own app store. Not only that, but they already run their own app store. Epic already has the infrastructure and inventory to be a credible alternative for games, because they have hundreds of games they already deliver on Windows, at a smaller cut than Apple charges in their app store. This isn't about Epic wanting to cash in on Apple's app store it's about them outgrowing it and wanting to open their own store when Apple won't let them (they might also be fine with a lower cut from Apple, but they would rather run their own store. They're keen to spend those Fortnite billions to expand as quickly as possible. They already opened their alternative to Steam on Windows, they would be happy to be the alternative to the App Store on iPhones for games).
- jevgeni 6y ago
  Can you install a Mercedes OS on BMW board computers? No. Can you install a BMW engine into a Mercedes? As much as you can install macOS on a Lenovo laptop. Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners. This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small. This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > Can you install a Mercedes OS on BMW board computers? No. You can't install Mercedes OS (I don't expect the iPhone to run windows it Microsoft doesn't want to port it), but you can customize the OS, as outlines here.[1] They call it a jailbreak, but given that it looks to just be replacing data files, I'm not sure someone couldn't opt to write their own portion of the system software entirely. > Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners. I see a clear difference between not making it easy (using your own standards to make it hard for others) and making it impossible or as close as they can through cryptopgraphy and signed software and not allowing the consumer to get access to those keys for their own devices. In some cases, it may be illegal because of DMCA encryption bypass laws. There's a difference between custom screw heads, which you can buy parts for but are not commonly available and using a combination of technology and law to make it impossible. > This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small. No, not small. Smaller than Apple, but possibly bigger than Steam. On a similar level at least. Epic reported revenues of $4.2 billionin 2019, and was projected to reach revenue of 5 billion in 2020.[2] There's not a lot of good data I can find about Valve's actual revenue, other than estimates from some data that it was ~4.3 billion in 2017 (explained in the Wikipedia article for them), which is then repeated as fact in a few other places. Keep in mind, they created and control Fortnite, which is still extremely popular. > This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place. Well, Apple is preventing them, if they want to offer it to iPhone customers. These are people that bought hardware, own that hardware, and then are told they are not allowed to control what runs on that hardware. I am opposed to this on a consumer rights level, because I don't believe I should be locked out of hardware I purchased. I am also opposed to this on a economic level, where it's adding arbitrary barriers to competition, distorting the market. For multiple reasons, I think allowing practices like this to continue are bad for our society and economy, and I think it needs to change. Even if I thought Apple had stumbled into this and didn't intend to prevent competition, I think it's problematic enough that it should be specifically legislated to require some third party access, if certain criteria are met. The alternative is to move farther along the path we already have. A decade ago open APIs and cross platform access was the norm. You could us a single application to access almost every single chat platform. Them Apple made iMessage and it was platform specific. Then Google shut down the XMPP gateway for their chat protocol, and made it private. We've somehow gone from a situation where everyone knew you had to interoperate with other companies and protocols to survive, to everyone shutting all the others out and trying to grab as much of the market for themselves, make it too costly and hard to move away, and trap their customers. Are we really better off? The biggest, most structurally resilient and important products we all use were developed in an age where interoperability was important and needed. HTTP, SMTP, POP and IMAP, IRC. Large companies have been trying to tear those down ever since, because it's less profitable. Now you have to log into Facebook or Instagram to see what most people would post to a blog previously. It's easier, and there's a lot of searchability enhancements, but would it really have been impossible for us to get close to that without the lock-in? To me, this is all very clear. We're in a new age of large companies using their resources to limit competition and hurt consumers. That they are able to do so without being a monopoly is beside the point. That they are hurting consumers by doing so is. My only hope is that some changes are made before it's too late to turn back, if it isn't already. If it doesn't change, what's debatable as problematic now like this will look downright appetizing in comparison. 1: https://www.drivingline.com/articles/jailbreak-how-to-unlock-hidden-features-in-your-bmws-onboard-system/ https://www.drivingline.com/articles/jailbreak-how-to-unlock... 2: https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/06/epic-games-unveils-1-78-billion-funding-round-at-17-3-billion-valuation/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/06/epic-games-unveils-1-78-b...

kbenson 6y ago

> All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. What? You can put a BMW engine in another car, you can put another engine in a BMW. BMW does not make it so that you can't use other engines or parts. This is nothing like BMW. I don't know about Tesla, but I suspect it's more a matter of others not making engines that fit the spec than it being explicitly designed to not allow other engines, but I really don't know enough about them to so. > Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. The running of it is always easy. Getting to the point it's successful is hard, because it requires many other things to go right. > This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple. What are you talking about? Epic is specifically bringing suit so they can run their own app store. Not only that, but they already run their own app store. Epic already has the infrastructure and inventory to be a credible alternative for games, because they have hundreds of games they already deliver on Windows, at a smaller cut than Apple charges in their app store. This isn't about Epic wanting to cash in on Apple's app store it's about them outgrowing it and wanting to open their own store when Apple won't let them (they might also be fine with a lower cut from Apple, but they would rather run their own store. They're keen to spend those Fortnite billions to expand as quickly as possible. They already opened their alternative to Steam on Windows, they would be happy to be the alternative to the App Store on iPhones for games).

jevgeni 6y ago
Can you install a Mercedes OS on BMW board computers? No. Can you install a BMW engine into a Mercedes? As much as you can install macOS on a Lenovo laptop. Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners. This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small. This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Can you install a Mercedes OS on BMW board computers? No. You can't install Mercedes OS (I don't expect the iPhone to run windows it Microsoft doesn't want to port it), but you can customize the OS, as outlines here.[1] They call it a jailbreak, but given that it looks to just be replacing data files, I'm not sure someone couldn't opt to write their own portion of the system software entirely. > Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners. I see a clear difference between not making it easy (using your own standards to make it hard for others) and making it impossible or as close as they can through cryptopgraphy and signed software and not allowing the consumer to get access to those keys for their own devices. In some cases, it may be illegal because of DMCA encryption bypass laws. There's a difference between custom screw heads, which you can buy parts for but are not commonly available and using a combination of technology and law to make it impossible. > This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small. No, not small. Smaller than Apple, but possibly bigger than Steam. On a similar level at least. Epic reported revenues of $4.2 billionin 2019, and was projected to reach revenue of 5 billion in 2020.[2] There's not a lot of good data I can find about Valve's actual revenue, other than estimates from some data that it was ~4.3 billion in 2017 (explained in the Wikipedia article for them), which is then repeated as fact in a few other places. Keep in mind, they created and control Fortnite, which is still extremely popular. > This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place. Well, Apple is preventing them, if they want to offer it to iPhone customers. These are people that bought hardware, own that hardware, and then are told they are not allowed to control what runs on that hardware. I am opposed to this on a consumer rights level, because I don't believe I should be locked out of hardware I purchased. I am also opposed to this on a economic level, where it's adding arbitrary barriers to competition, distorting the market. For multiple reasons, I think allowing practices like this to continue are bad for our society and economy, and I think it needs to change. Even if I thought Apple had stumbled into this and didn't intend to prevent competition, I think it's problematic enough that it should be specifically legislated to require some third party access, if certain criteria are met. The alternative is to move farther along the path we already have. A decade ago open APIs and cross platform access was the norm. You could us a single application to access almost every single chat platform. Them Apple made iMessage and it was platform specific. Then Google shut down the XMPP gateway for their chat protocol, and made it private. We've somehow gone from a situation where everyone knew you had to interoperate with other companies and protocols to survive, to everyone shutting all the others out and trying to grab as much of the market for themselves, make it too costly and hard to move away, and trap their customers. Are we really better off? The biggest, most structurally resilient and important products we all use were developed in an age where interoperability was important and needed. HTTP, SMTP, POP and IMAP, IRC. Large companies have been trying to tear those down ever since, because it's less profitable. Now you have to log into Facebook or Instagram to see what most people would post to a blog previously. It's easier, and there's a lot of searchability enhancements, but would it really have been impossible for us to get close to that without the lock-in? To me, this is all very clear. We're in a new age of large companies using their resources to limit competition and hurt consumers. That they are able to do so without being a monopoly is beside the point. That they are hurting consumers by doing so is. My only hope is that some changes are made before it's too late to turn back, if it isn't already. If it doesn't change, what's debatable as problematic now like this will look downright appetizing in comparison. 1: https://www.drivingline.com/articles/jailbreak-how-to-unlock-hidden-features-in-your-bmws-onboard-system/ https://www.drivingline.com/articles/jailbreak-how-to-unlock... 2: https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/06/epic-games-unveils-1-78-billion-funding-round-at-17-3-billion-valuation/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/06/epic-games-unveils-1-78-b...