5 ms·

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.

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.

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.