5 ms·

What right exactly do you believe is in play here? I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardwar

What right exactly do you believe is in play here? I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. But I don't see any moral right to the money. Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Then, to be fully honest, we need a new law. The judicial system (at least in theory) isn’t supposed to make new laws as they please but rule on existing ones. Also, Apple isn’t Google or Microsoft in the eyes of the law because the iPhone started from nothing and no usage with these restrictions from the beginning. From the law’s perspective, being closed from the beginning and growing powerful is different than being open from the beginning, growing, and then closing.
- wpietri 5y ago
  For sure. I don't know the law well enough to comment on the legal ruling. But I do think that if the ruling is correct, we need different laws. I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Whether we see Apple's App Store as a natural monopoly or an artificially maintained one, there's no arguing that the normal market correction mechanism, competition, is ineffective here.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Does this proposed law also cover video games sold on platforms run by Sony and Microsoft, or only video games sold on platforms run by by Apple and Google?
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I would hope it covers all platforms. I think locked-down general-purpose computers that only run code blessed by the manufacturer should just not be legal at all. These days Xboxes and Playstations are just as general-purpose as a phone or a laptop.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        At least that has the benefit of being consistent. But I would contend that such a world would have a universally more expensive consumer experience because you'd basically replace all games consoles with Windows PCs.
        kelnos 5y ago
        I'm not sure I'd expect that. It might be more expensive, sure, because console makers would expect less revenue from their cut of game sales. So they'll compensate by making the console more expensive. But I expect that'll still be cheaper than buying a high-end gaming PC, and the experience of plugging in a console with made-for-purpose wireless controllers will always be better than essentially building your own, and I expect people will still be ok paying for that.
        simondotau 5y ago
        Without game exclusives, anyone can build a game console. Without access to software exclusives, there's no incentive for companies likes Sony and Nintendo to front development costs with the hope of strong revenues for the overall program. Because anyone can come along and make equivalent hardware that plays the same games. In short, consoles would just be PCs.
        wpietri 5y ago
        Consoles also have the benefit of standardization, plus major companies with consumer relationships. And console-makers would still be well placed to act like studios. So consoles would still probably be consoles, but the economics would be different. The economies of scale for manufacturing and game development would still apply, though, so it definitely wouldn't be just like PCs.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    The interesting thing is that, as much as I agree that I don't think Apple should have the ability to demand this, it's not like Apple is "innovating" here when it comes to fees. Back in the days of feature phones, manufacturers and carriers would happily take over 50% of revenue from an app developer. That was just an accepted way of how business was done. You want to be on a phone, you pay out the nose for the privilege. Apple (and Google) charge much lower fees in comparison. But I do agree that the current situation isn't great. In the days of feature phones, the defining feature (heh) was making calls and perhaps texting. Most people didn't buy them for the (paltry few) apps that were available on some (paltry few) models. The manufacturers and carriers didn't need the apps, really. But that's not the case anymore. Most people's phones are entertainment platforms primarily, and the "phone" aspects are pretty secondary. While the app-poor iPhone of 2007 was revolutionary for its time, if Apple or Google killed all third-party apps on iOS or Android, phone sales would drop like a rock. Yes, the app developers need the phone platform, but the phone platform really needs the app developers too. I think it's fine for Apple to get some cut of apps sold through the App Store. I think it's fine for them to get a cut of in-app purchases made through Apple's own IAP system. Those things were not free for Apple to build, and they are not free for Apple to operate, so it's only fair that Apple should charge something for use of them. I think 30% happens to be too much (opinions differ, of course), but I think the "correct" amount is certainly greater than zero. But I don't think Apple should have a monopoly on iOS app stores, or on iOS in-app payment methods. Customers should be allowed to install things on the phone however they want, and if they install something they bought from some random developer's website, Apple doesn't deserve a cut of that. And if an app allows you to purchase things through the app, I don't think Apple should be allowed to require use of their IAP system, or be allowed to take a cut if a developer chooses to use their own system. I know they have a legal right to do so, but I don't believe it's good for consumers that they can demand this[0]. Until this changes, I'll never own an iPhone (I'm sure Apple doesn't care). As much as Android has its own problems, I'm happy that I can install things from the F-Droid repository, and in the past I've even run alternate ROMs on my phone. Giving up the ability to do all that is a non-starter for me. [0] On the flip side, I do think that Apple's IAP system, as designed, is actually great for consumers, since it makes sure nothing shady goes on with these purchases, and makes it easy to manage subscriptions without dark patterns confusing people. But I think they should be required to make it the best system for app developers as well, which means much more reasonable pricing, and possibly giving app developers a little more ownership over the customer relationship. If they don't want to do that, that's fine, but then I think they should be required to allow competitors to enter the "in-app payments system" market to give both developers and customers more choice. I'll even concede that Apple should be able to require that apps offer the option of Apple's IAP system if another system is available, but users should be able to decide to use the other system if it offers better prices and they're happy with whatever trade off that entails.
  - dmak 5y ago
    Why is this a moral right? The company decides to leverage the users, tools, and ecosystem of Apple to make money so they agree to the terms. What is immoral about that? Do you do business in a different country, make money, and then criticize the government for "siphoning off a share of the money flowing through their platform"? I'm referring to taxes.
    - tveita 5y ago
      > The company decides to leverage the users, tools, and ecosystem of Apple to make money Apple does not own its users. If the legal owner of an iPhone wants to run code from a third-party on it Apple should have no right to interfere. Apple can set its own terms on its SDKs and tools but we should be able to forego them. > I'm referring to taxes. Are Apple's shareholders going to provide people with education and healthcare? What a complete non-sequitur.
      - dmak 5y ago
        > Apple does not own its users. If the legal owner of an iPhone wants to run code from a third-party on it Apple should have no right to interfere. Apple can set its own terms on its SDKs and tools but we should be able to forego them. I think you are talking about something different. This is in regards what is allowed on the app store. In this case, Epic didn't want to pay the app store fees. That's different from what a user wants. This is a ruling on the relationship between the company and Apple, not the user.
GeekyBear 5y ago
> Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. This is literally already the case for XBox. Microsoft tried to lock the Surface RT and Windows RT to their app store, but the product failed in the marketplace.
- wpietri 5y ago
  I agree they got away with it with the XBox. My question is whether that's morally right. People who believe that should presumably argue that Windows should be the same way. That they don't suggests that a status quo bias is in play here. Apple's App Store and vendor-locked consoles are seen as ok because they exist. But I think few would say Microsoft has the moral right to lock down Windows and take a 30% cut of all the software and software-based revenues, even if their dominant marketplace position (and lobbyist-influenced laws) would let them get away with it.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Also I wonder where the line should be drawn if Microsoft did it? Could they take 30% of let's say revenue done on Amazon? Or if we expand to other platforms could they take 30% of stock trading? Loan repayments?
kelnos 5y ago
I don't think anyone is talking about moral rights here, just legal ones.
- wpietri 5y ago
  I am talking about them. As are plenty of others. Our collective moral choices are what underlies the law. So when most people talk about whether this is the "right" outcome it's not a technical question about the law as written, it's about that plus whether we have the right laws in the first place.
simondotau 5y ago
> What right exactly do you believe is in play here? It's explicitly stated in the ruling. Use of Apple's intellectual property. Precisely the same right Epic exercises to receive a revenue share from games developed with Unreal Engine.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Using one's intellectual property gives the moral right to demand payment? In that case, my quoting fee is $1000 per sentence. Please Paypal me immediately.
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    The difference is that Apple has always been up front about the usage of their IP and the payments that follow. They have never increased the revenue share, only lowered it. What you are doing here is changing the terms to your advantage after the usage of the IP
mewse 5y ago
Note that “moral rights” (also called “author’s rights” in some jurisdictions) are an actual thing in IP law. I don’t think you’re talking about those, but I just wanted to mention it because some other replies seem to be misinterpreting your comment to be a statement of law rather than a statement of ethics.
belltaco 5y ago
>Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that. You're underestimating the bias. People would be rioting in the streets if Microsoft or Dell decide to do the same thing. Apple could make the cut 70% and you'd see people defending it saying "security & easy payments", while ignoring the same arguments when it comes to security beefed up a little bit in Windows 11 or with secure boot back in the day. For example, ransomware and cheating in games could be reduced by an order of magnitude overnight if Microsoft locks down Windows like iOS, but the pros are never discussed, only the antis. Similarly Google's privacy issues weren't discussed back in the day because they were fighting Microsoft. Stories about Google starting tracking which stores people visited wouldn't get upvotes. One small misstep by Microsoft and it'd be all over the front page for days. Palladium was railed on at during the early 2000s, along with DRM, then Apple implemented Palladium and DRM, there was barely a peep. Same with Chromebooks that were locked down much more than any PC. You had people recommend that others purchase Chromebook and iPads, because computing freedom suddenly didn't matter when it came to these companies. MS got a lot of shit for just pre-installing IE while allowing Netscape to be installed by the user, imagine if they had banned other browsers like Apple does. The difference in moral arguments from users are substantial.
- bogwog 5y ago
  I kind of hope Microsoft finally goes all-in on Windows 11 and just locks that down like iOS/Android. Maybe then people will finally realize how absurd all those arguments defending Apple are.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Not going to happen, their argument will be that changing an existing system is different from a new system that implements the same thing.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
Aeolun 5y ago
> I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. Fuck no. I as a consumer already paid $1000 for that hardware. They have zero claim to it. The problem is they still get to hold the OS hostage.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Yes, morally I agree. I think we've ended up with an absurd outcome. That's a sign to me that there's a mistake somewhere upstream.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  So if you paid $5/mo for facebook but then facebook went and sold some ads to businesses would you say “fuck no” to that because as a consumer you are already paying $5/mo for facebook? This kind of diversification in revenue happens all the time.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Then, to be fully honest, we need a new law. The judicial system (at least in theory) isn’t supposed to make new laws as they please but rule on existing ones. Also, Apple isn’t Google or Microsoft in the eyes of the law because the iPhone started from nothing and no usage with these restrictions from the beginning. From the law’s perspective, being closed from the beginning and growing powerful is different than being open from the beginning, growing, and then closing.

wpietri 5y ago
For sure. I don't know the law well enough to comment on the legal ruling. But I do think that if the ruling is correct, we need different laws. I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Whether we see Apple's App Store as a natural monopoly or an artificially maintained one, there's no arguing that the normal market correction mechanism, competition, is ineffective here.
- simondotau 5y ago
  > I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Does this proposed law also cover video games sold on platforms run by Sony and Microsoft, or only video games sold on platforms run by by Apple and Google?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I would hope it covers all platforms. I think locked-down general-purpose computers that only run code blessed by the manufacturer should just not be legal at all. These days Xboxes and Playstations are just as general-purpose as a phone or a laptop.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      At least that has the benefit of being consistent. But I would contend that such a world would have a universally more expensive consumer experience because you'd basically replace all games consoles with Windows PCs.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        I'm not sure I'd expect that. It might be more expensive, sure, because console makers would expect less revenue from their cut of game sales. So they'll compensate by making the console more expensive. But I expect that'll still be cheaper than buying a high-end gaming PC, and the experience of plugging in a console with made-for-purpose wireless controllers will always be better than essentially building your own, and I expect people will still be ok paying for that.
        simondotau 5y ago
        Without game exclusives, anyone can build a game console. Without access to software exclusives, there's no incentive for companies likes Sony and Nintendo to front development costs with the hope of strong revenues for the overall program. Because anyone can come along and make equivalent hardware that plays the same games. In short, consoles would just be PCs.
        wpietri 5y ago
        Consoles also have the benefit of standardization, plus major companies with consumer relationships. And console-makers would still be well placed to act like studios. So consoles would still probably be consoles, but the economics would be different. The economies of scale for manufacturing and game development would still apply, though, so it definitely wouldn't be just like PCs.
- kelnos 5y ago
  The interesting thing is that, as much as I agree that I don't think Apple should have the ability to demand this, it's not like Apple is "innovating" here when it comes to fees. Back in the days of feature phones, manufacturers and carriers would happily take over 50% of revenue from an app developer. That was just an accepted way of how business was done. You want to be on a phone, you pay out the nose for the privilege. Apple (and Google) charge much lower fees in comparison. But I do agree that the current situation isn't great. In the days of feature phones, the defining feature (heh) was making calls and perhaps texting. Most people didn't buy them for the (paltry few) apps that were available on some (paltry few) models. The manufacturers and carriers didn't need the apps, really. But that's not the case anymore. Most people's phones are entertainment platforms primarily, and the "phone" aspects are pretty secondary. While the app-poor iPhone of 2007 was revolutionary for its time, if Apple or Google killed all third-party apps on iOS or Android, phone sales would drop like a rock. Yes, the app developers need the phone platform, but the phone platform really needs the app developers too. I think it's fine for Apple to get some cut of apps sold through the App Store. I think it's fine for them to get a cut of in-app purchases made through Apple's own IAP system. Those things were not free for Apple to build, and they are not free for Apple to operate, so it's only fair that Apple should charge something for use of them. I think 30% happens to be too much (opinions differ, of course), but I think the "correct" amount is certainly greater than zero. But I don't think Apple should have a monopoly on iOS app stores, or on iOS in-app payment methods. Customers should be allowed to install things on the phone however they want, and if they install something they bought from some random developer's website, Apple doesn't deserve a cut of that. And if an app allows you to purchase things through the app, I don't think Apple should be allowed to require use of their IAP system, or be allowed to take a cut if a developer chooses to use their own system. I know they have a legal right to do so, but I don't believe it's good for consumers that they can demand this[0]. Until this changes, I'll never own an iPhone (I'm sure Apple doesn't care). As much as Android has its own problems, I'm happy that I can install things from the F-Droid repository, and in the past I've even run alternate ROMs on my phone. Giving up the ability to do all that is a non-starter for me. [0] On the flip side, I do think that Apple's IAP system, as designed, is actually great for consumers, since it makes sure nothing shady goes on with these purchases, and makes it easy to manage subscriptions without dark patterns confusing people. But I think they should be required to make it the best system for app developers as well, which means much more reasonable pricing, and possibly giving app developers a little more ownership over the customer relationship. If they don't want to do that, that's fine, but then I think they should be required to allow competitors to enter the "in-app payments system" market to give both developers and customers more choice. I'll even concede that Apple should be able to require that apps offer the option of Apple's IAP system if another system is available, but users should be able to decide to use the other system if it offers better prices and they're happy with whatever trade off that entails.
- dmak 5y ago
  Why is this a moral right? The company decides to leverage the users, tools, and ecosystem of Apple to make money so they agree to the terms. What is immoral about that? Do you do business in a different country, make money, and then criticize the government for "siphoning off a share of the money flowing through their platform"? I'm referring to taxes.
  - tveita 5y ago
    > The company decides to leverage the users, tools, and ecosystem of Apple to make money Apple does not own its users. If the legal owner of an iPhone wants to run code from a third-party on it Apple should have no right to interfere. Apple can set its own terms on its SDKs and tools but we should be able to forego them. > I'm referring to taxes. Are Apple's shareholders going to provide people with education and healthcare? What a complete non-sequitur.
    - dmak 5y ago
      > Apple does not own its users. If the legal owner of an iPhone wants to run code from a third-party on it Apple should have no right to interfere. Apple can set its own terms on its SDKs and tools but we should be able to forego them. I think you are talking about something different. This is in regards what is allowed on the app store. In this case, Epic didn't want to pay the app store fees. That's different from what a user wants. This is a ruling on the relationship between the company and Apple, not the user.

GeekyBear 5y ago

> Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. This is literally already the case for XBox. Microsoft tried to lock the Surface RT and Windows RT to their app store, but the product failed in the marketplace.

wpietri 5y ago
I agree they got away with it with the XBox. My question is whether that's morally right. People who believe that should presumably argue that Windows should be the same way. That they don't suggests that a status quo bias is in play here. Apple's App Store and vendor-locked consoles are seen as ok because they exist. But I think few would say Microsoft has the moral right to lock down Windows and take a 30% cut of all the software and software-based revenues, even if their dominant marketplace position (and lobbyist-influenced laws) would let them get away with it.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Also I wonder where the line should be drawn if Microsoft did it? Could they take 30% of let's say revenue done on Amazon? Or if we expand to other platforms could they take 30% of stock trading? Loan repayments?

kelnos 5y ago

I don't think anyone is talking about moral rights here, just legal ones.

wpietri 5y ago
I am talking about them. As are plenty of others. Our collective moral choices are what underlies the law. So when most people talk about whether this is the "right" outcome it's not a technical question about the law as written, it's about that plus whether we have the right laws in the first place.

simondotau 5y ago

> What right exactly do you believe is in play here? It's explicitly stated in the ruling. Use of Apple's intellectual property. Precisely the same right Epic exercises to receive a revenue share from games developed with Unreal Engine.

wpietri 5y ago
Using one's intellectual property gives the moral right to demand payment? In that case, my quoting fee is $1000 per sentence. Please Paypal me immediately.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  The difference is that Apple has always been up front about the usage of their IP and the payments that follow. They have never increased the revenue share, only lowered it. What you are doing here is changing the terms to your advantage after the usage of the IP

mewse 5y ago

Note that “moral rights” (also called “author’s rights” in some jurisdictions) are an actual thing in IP law. I don’t think you’re talking about those, but I just wanted to mention it because some other replies seem to be misinterpreting your comment to be a statement of law rather than a statement of ethics.

belltaco 5y ago

>Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that. You're underestimating the bias. People would be rioting in the streets if Microsoft or Dell decide to do the same thing. Apple could make the cut 70% and you'd see people defending it saying "security & easy payments", while ignoring the same arguments when it comes to security beefed up a little bit in Windows 11 or with secure boot back in the day. For example, ransomware and cheating in games could be reduced by an order of magnitude overnight if Microsoft locks down Windows like iOS, but the pros are never discussed, only the antis. Similarly Google's privacy issues weren't discussed back in the day because they were fighting Microsoft. Stories about Google starting tracking which stores people visited wouldn't get upvotes. One small misstep by Microsoft and it'd be all over the front page for days. Palladium was railed on at during the early 2000s, along with DRM, then Apple implemented Palladium and DRM, there was barely a peep. Same with Chromebooks that were locked down much more than any PC. You had people recommend that others purchase Chromebook and iPads, because computing freedom suddenly didn't matter when it came to these companies. MS got a lot of shit for just pre-installing IE while allowing Netscape to be installed by the user, imagine if they had banned other browsers like Apple does. The difference in moral arguments from users are substantial.

bogwog 5y ago
I kind of hope Microsoft finally goes all-in on Windows 11 and just locks that down like iOS/Android. Maybe then people will finally realize how absurd all those arguments defending Apple are.
- belltaco 5y ago
  Not going to happen, their argument will be that changing an existing system is different from a new system that implements the same thing.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

Aeolun 5y ago

> I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. Fuck no. I as a consumer already paid $1000 for that hardware. They have zero claim to it. The problem is they still get to hold the OS hostage.

wpietri 5y ago
Yes, morally I agree. I think we've ended up with an absurd outcome. That's a sign to me that there's a mistake somewhere upstream.
enos_feedler 5y ago
So if you paid $5/mo for facebook but then facebook went and sold some ads to businesses would you say “fuck no” to that because as a consumer you are already paying $5/mo for facebook? This kind of diversification in revenue happens all the time.