Hacker News Reader

Comment by ece | Hacker News Reader

No walled gardens should be beyond reproach IMO. I think Epic has it's work laid out for it, and they would definitely have a shot with a jury trial, and likely at the Supreme Court given Apple vs Pepper.

View on HN

It's sometimes interesting to look at the history of walled gardens and how they came to be. Nintendo's console model, for example, was a direct reaction to previous failed no-walled-gardens models where consumer confidence that they weren't burning money buying a lemon console that only supported crappy games cracked.

On phones, Symbian and Blackberry were about as open as Android is currently (though signing apps was partially required IIRC). iOS/iPhones has always been closed except for the web browser.

I think there are completely valid cases for having a locked down phone, but it should be up to the user, not the device/OS maker. In this case, I don't think a phone developer can negotiate fair terms until the users have choice.

Single purpose locked-down devices are all around us from ereaders to TV streaming boxes to game consoles, and here I think it's important to distinguish by purpose from the more general purpose of a phone.

In the sense that nobody is obligated to buy an iPhone (and can jailbreak one after buying it, for that matter), it is up to the user. For the consumer, they have more choice if Android-style "app store but also side-loading," phones that lack an app store altogether, and iPhone-style walled garden coexist.

If you have a company phone you have a different type of walled garden than even what the iPhone provides through some MDM layer. Apple could offer such a separate MDM-based consumer product and also allow side loading.

Microsoft was forced to open up browsing/programming/AV APIs, on which future innovation was built. What Epic is asking for is no different IMO. I just don't think the benefits of multiple open platforms can be understated similar to Windows vs. Linux over the last twenty years.

Both Linux and Windows represent terrible user experiences for many users. Windows, until recent improvements, had a very rocky relationship with being online (primary attack target for viruses, rootkits, and botnets). The Linux ecosystem's user-hostility to the average computer user is the stuff of legend, although things have obviously improved greatly (this is still not the year that Linux on the desktop gains mainstream acceptance).

I think you've ignored my main point, which is Windows, Linux and MacOS kept innovating by being open and iOS and Android can do the same for phones.

They could, but what's the benefit? Apple is currently innovating by being closed.

(Android is a more complicated story; if you mean "The Android ecosystem tied to Google Play Services and controlled by Google," I can agree. There's a whole chunk of Android not meeting that criteria, and by many people's estimates, it's behind the 'closed' one for features and reliability).

Let's define innovation here, for iOS it would be the A13 and widgets, while for Android it would be folding screens and a modular Android that's easier to update. But you know, this thread is about Fortnite not being on iOS, and Apple weaponizing technologies like Metal and Safari. Apple innovation is lock-in, while Android is not.

If jailbreaking could be done the same way I can unlock the bootloader for my Android device, you would have a point. Unfortunately it requires using security exploits, which Apple is doing its best to plug.

Symbian apps were sold by mobile operators with margins up to 80%.

You could only install apps outside the store via the SDK.

Later on, during the Ovi Store days it was possible to buy applications and install them via the phone management software, which only technical inclined users did.

Carrier appstores aside, you could download apps directly from Google or any other website on any Symbian phone.

And people didn't want to do that so they bought an iPhone.

People also didn't think Apple would just stop updates to a game they paid Apple money for.

They paid money to Epic, which is the responsible for them not having the game in first place.

You should learn about Apple vs Pepper.

Why do you think that case is relevant to this discussion? The only issue that has been resolved in that case so far is a question about standing. The actual anti-trust questions are still unresolved.

It is completely irrelevant for this court case.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that a case which determined that users can sue Apple because Apple is the direct seller, and in the dissent said developers would have an even better standing to sue Apple leads us to where we are. It's precedent.

Except Epic has specifically stated they don't want a jury trial.

Also, I'm not sure why you think Apple v. Pepper is relevant here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com