Hacker News Reader

Comment by enos_feedler | Hacker News Reader

Actually, imagine if you were Walmart and you've spent the past 25 years investing in your brand, real-estate, parking lots, buildings, advertising, signage, etc. Your goal is to build a thriving business for _your_ customers. A fertilizer company isn't happy with the placement they are getting in your stores, so they sue you and say you need to give them dedicated, premium space in the parking lot. They also think its annoying that customers coming to Walmart for fertilizer need to go into the store to pay for their product. They want these Walmart customers to pay cash in the parking lot, pocketing all the money for themselves. If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. Epic is the fertilizer company and this whole lawsuit is embarrassing.

View on HN

The difference is plenty of companies can make storefronts - look at Steam vs GOG and all the other options for gaming on Windows.

You act like companies wouldn't produce viable alternatives given the opportunity... and you act like Steam isn't better because of the competition.

Apple is putting forced restrictions on their platform because they want to squeeze everyone who comes through their doors. Apple acts like they are the only ones who can create a "brand, real-estate, parking lots, etc" when in reality, it can be done a lot better by any number of other companies - the only reason they can charge 30% is because of artificial restrictions put in place so... they can charge 30%.

Walmart doesn't want Target next door... because then they'll have to actually innovate to keep their customers.

Plenty of companies can make phones too, but it takes extreme time, effort, and talent to do so. It all depends on where you put the fertilizer - is the fertilizer company saying they should be able to set up a stall in the walmart parking lot, or are they saying Walmart is preventing them from setting up a store on their own land a hundred feet away from Walmart?

I am saying Walmart is preventing the fertilizer stall on their own property. The iPhone hardware, OS and platform is the property of Apple, just like the parking lot is property of Walmart. But actually, I am not even saying Walmart is preventing this. I am just saying Walmart won't hand them this opportunity for free. The result is the fertilizer company suing Walmart.

"for free" and yet Apple will still make a profit due to physical phone sales, $99/year fees, etc. To imply that they aren't profitable outside of the 30% cut is laughable. Plenty of companies "research, develop, provide opportunities" that can't and don't resort to monopolistic and territorialistic practices to block competition.

There's no reason that EA can't accept payments outside of the Apple store other than monopolistic protectionism. "research and development" of something 100s of other companies can and do is a weak excuse - and one easily picked apart with relevant examples.

I don't care if Apple spends it on research and development or prostitutes. It isn't about how they manage their money. It's about their right to set their own B2B pricing. EA can accept the payments, but Apple still has the right to charge them to operate their business on top of the Apple ecosystem.

It sounds ridiculous because the analogy is really far-fetched. A slightly better one would be that the owner of Walmart is also the mayor of the town, and he won't approve the business permit for the fertilizer store unless they agree to also sell their stuff at Walmart.

In the analogy, Apple is Walmart. Could you explain what it means for Apple to be "mayor of the town"? Apple is not the mayor of any metaphorical town. They own a business.

Walmart is the App Store, Apple is the town, and Epic is the fertilizer company wanting to open a farming supplies store of their own because all the farmers already know them from farming fairs and word of mouth so they don't really need the exposure from being on display in Walmart.

I don’t think Apple is the town. A town is something that a user (resident) should feel comfortable staying with their whole life. However, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to pickup a new phone from a different vendor on their next upgrade cycle. Therefore Apple can’t be the town. Apple is Walmart and Samsung is Target and the 100s of other Android devices are other stores.

The town is a good analogy because switching towns – like switching phones – is a significant expense relative in either case, while switching stores is free.

Interesting. So is the goal of regulation to ensure it's easy for people to switch "towns"? What if Apple, Samsung and Google needed to make it simple and easy to switch between their respective platforms, to a best effort? For example, if they both had similar cloud photo storage they would automatically exchange those. In other words, if we can make switching mobile ecosystems as easy as switching stores then we shouldn't take issue with Apple or Samsung or any other mobile platform. Market forces alone can influence how each company runs their business.

Sure, if you can switch from a Galaxy S10 to an iPhone 11 for free, then your argument might apply.

Apple would just have to take other phones as payment for their phones, and the same in reverse.

The issue isn't one of technology, it's that you're pretty much locked in after spending a lot on a phone.

I don't know about that. How is this different from Costco selling a membership for a year? You've just paid up front for access to Costco for a year and now you are "pretty much locked in". Why doesn't a cookie company sue Costco for better placement the ability to pay for those cookies with cash directly to the cookie company? Those poor customers are locked into Costco and have to live with Costco's choices on which products to stock, where they go in the store, and pay for them through Costco checkouts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com