Hacker News Reader

Comment by wernercd | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com