Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickflood | Hacker News Reader

Note how many sources wanted to stay anonymous "for fear of upsetting Apple".

Apple knows they can end businesses with the click of a finger. That's what they tried to do by ending the dev license for Unreal Engine. And Apple wants everybody to know that they know. I'm almost certain that the Unreal Dev license revocation is a result of a similar email chain as what happened to Kindle - https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-ki... - execs just thinking of a way to punish the company.

This, for me, is the biggest monopoly argument. Too much business success is hinged on Apple being happy, and they start to abuse this power more and more by tightening (the interpretation of) App Store rules like requiring in-app purchases etc.

IMO Epic is not the best company to challenge Apple in all this, but in American judicial system Epic may be one of the very few companies that can afford this lawsuit.

View on HN

Epic isn't the hero we need but the hero we deserve.

I can certainly imagine a lot of companies are tight-lipped about it.

My livelihood depends on an app store and so I'm super cautious about what I say publicly about the company that controls it.

This sort of chilling effect is scary and should rightly be contested.

Epic is criticized for being a huge company themselves and using that as leverage in their legal battle. However, small companies stand absolutely no chance so Epic is the only one that can take this fight.

Epic is the champion of all the smaller businesses with apps on phones. Not because Epic wants them to do well but because Epic wants Epic to do well. They'll just happen to help all of us - consumer and developer - with them.

I'm rooting for them.

Me too. I think, Epic is uniquely positioned also because it is privately held. As such, its actions are more representative of what Tim Sweeney thinks is right instead of the investor mob. And to me as a developer Tim Sweeney seems like a pretty good guy similar to Carmack in many ways.

Tim Sweeney's position on Linux is pretty indicative of his character. He'll bitch and moan about Microsoft and Apple locking things down, but refuses to support a true open platform. He's in this for money, pure and simple.

Carmack, by comparison, is a saint.

Sweeney has principles, but one of them isn't supporting a platform with no chance of it paying off the investment needed to support it.

I'll root for them once they stop pushing exclusives (paid for monopoly on distribution rights) vs steam/etc. It isn't the same issue but it's close enough that I find it ironic they are complaining about a monopoly store while trying to compete against Steam/etc by buying a monopoly on a game at least during the first 6 months of release.

It’s not even close. Apple is forcing developers how they can reach their customer. Epic deals are made by developers with regards to how they want to reach their customers. They are both uncomfortable for some customers, but that is not the issue. Let’s say you utterly dislike Wal Mart and your favorite ice cream is exclusively available there because Wal Mart struck a deal with the maker (e.g. they’ll fund them). That’s not the same as Wal Mart forcing the ice cream vendor to sell exclusively to Wal Mart because otherwise the item will be banned from the shelves, which results in a huge loss in customer reach, thus abusing their market position.

This "random capriciousness" is perhaps the primary concern which keeps me from developing for Apple systems.

If I invest my own time and capital into developing a product, which can only be sold through a single outlet, and which could be arbitrarily banned at any point in time, that's simply too much risk to bear. Apple, as the arbiter of what is sold through their store, have far too much power. Why would I put full control of my business into their hands? I, for one, wouldn't.

Multiple competing stores are the solution to most of the problems. It would certainly de-risk selling on Apple platforms. And it would allow for proper competition over pricing. Customers could purchase from the store which provided the most value. As would allowing "sideloading" so that users who wish to have proper control over their own property.

That risk is low comparing to the reward on such large user base. Most business can thrive if they develop an actual app with good value. You can always pick a war with Apple, but that’s a risk you choose to take after you make it big.

I think the point they are trying to make is that you are also at risk if Apple decides to pick a war with you.

The rules are not some crystal clear logical function that you can be sure that you stay inside of. They are vague, selectively enforced and can change any any time. So at the end of the day if Apple decides that they don't like you they pick a vague rule, claim that you violate it and poof! you lost a war you didn't know that you were fighting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com