Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

It's a reference to the classic AT&T monopoly, when Verizon et al were still part of AT&T and you notoriously had to buy your phone from them (and they prohibited analog modems in favor of paying them for extortionately expensive ISDN lines etc.)

"You can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic.

Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What do I do if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?

View on HN

> And "you can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic.

I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic.

> Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What happens if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?

A couple of things: first, you ideally should be doing research before buying a product. Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones. If it's not, then it's just not. I think that's a personal choice and doesn't have much to do with anything other than making economic decisions for yourself. For example, I really like video games (but hardly play). There are games that I want to play that aren't available on the Mac. My choices are buy a Windows machine, or buy a Mac, or buy both (or neither). I chose to forgo a game I want to play in favor of having a Mac and to make that trade off. It's a trade off. I'm hopeful that game could come to the Mac but there's no good reason I can tell to force someone to make the game because I want to have my cake and eat it too.

Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else.

This is just how the world works.

> I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic.

You can just fly to Britain and rent a flat there. It's not physically impossible. It is an unreasonable thing to have to do in order to switch carriers.

> Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones.

That's the point. The $400 is a switching barrier which acts as a wall segmenting the app markets by platform, with the result that Apple has a monopoly on the iOS side of the wall. Excluding competing stores is then monopoly abuse.

> Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else.

The point is that this trade off is artificial and only exists as a result of anti-competitive practices. Otherwise you could get iMessage on your iPhone from the Apple App Store and get a BitTorrent client from some other app store still on your iPhone.

It's one thing for something not to exist because there is no demand for it. If anybody can develop a Mac game and then not everybody does because there aren't enough Mac gamers to justify it, c'est la vie. It's caused by lack of demand, not anti-competitive behavior. If you want to develop a game for Mac, nobody is stopping you.

Whereas if the reason the Mac gaming market was small was that Apple had their own game studio and prohibited games from competing studios, that's anti-competitive behavior.

It's specifically problematic because the market can't fix it -- even if there is demand for alternatives, alternatives are prohibited, which is different than just not enough people wanting them for anybody to become a provider.

> I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic.

I agree with you here - this is a bad comparison, it's incredibly easy to just go buy something that isn't iOS-based - but that doesn't actually help much, at least from Epic's perspective. In fact, Epic is suing Google over how they treat Android as well:

* Google Play has similar restrictions to the iOS App Store, therefore neither Fortnite (assuming they want their own payment processing) nor EGS can exist on it.

* Sideloading is possible (and was/is (?) used for Fortnite) so that at least is fine, however...

* Sideloaded apps lose out on some important features - namely that they can't auto-update. Technically, this isn't a sideloading restriction but a restriction on non-system apps but the result is the same. System apps cannot be installed except via an OS flash (with a custom ROM)/root which is not something you can expect the average consumer to do.

* Additionally, Epic cannot make deals with manufacturers to get EGS installed as a system app due to Google blocking them from making those deals.

I have mixed feelings overall on whether we should be giving more opportunities for manufacturers to install possible bloatware on phones (something that plagued the early days of Android and still does to some degree) and whether it's a good idea to open up sideloading system apps. But even so, you have to admit that you can't "just" buy another phone to be able to do what Epic wants. Whether that's worthy of antitrust action... I really don't know.

> But even so, you have to admit that you can't "just" buy another phone to be able to do what Epic wants.

Sure but why would we expect that this should be the case or be desirable?

Epic has restrictions on its own Epic store, for example.

Because EGS isn't the only store on the platform - if you can't sell through their store you can go elsewhere (or DIY it). They aren't obligated to sell your products, but you also aren't obligated to sell via their store.

On iOS it's outright impossible to have a native app that isn't distributed through the app store (testflight/enterprise apps aside). With Google Play it's technically possible but you're at a massive disadvantage not just due to Google Play's reach (which is fine) but due to technical and contractual limitations imposed by Google themselves (which is arguably not fine).

I can’t sell my own Fortnite skins, for example. If I wanted to access the Fortnite user base I have to use the Epic Game Store. I also can’t sell any game I want on their platform. I have to follow their rules, get approval? Etc.

Not to mention video game exclusives. Why do I have to download Fortnite through the Epic Game Store and have an Epic account? Shouldn’t I be able to sign in with another provider? I should be able to download, install, and play Fortnite with my Steam account and buy and sell in game content via Steam or other providers. It seems like they are limiting competition by forcing me to use their login system and micro transaction platform.

I just don’t find the anger at the Apple App Store compelling. The only reason we are talking about it is because it’s a popular platform.

> I can’t sell my own Fortnite skins, for example. If I wanted to access the Fortnite user base I have to use the Epic Game Store.

You're right - and Epic isn't arguing that they have to be let on to the App Store, except in the case where there's no alternative. Ignoring the fact that Fortnite isn't actually a platform that allows you to submit skins to Epic (and as such isn't really comparable), you absolutely can make your own skins and 3d models and content and sell them somewhere else, you just can't in Fortnite.

And before you say "oh but they can just go to Android" - no, they can't, because Google Play has similar restrictions and while making a separate store is possible it isn't practical due to technical restrictions Google imposes on the OS.

> I also can’t sell any game I want on their platform. I have to follow their rules, get approval? Etc.

I've already addressed this. On iOS it is impossible to sell an app outside of the app store. If you're denied from EGS you can just go to Steam, itch.io, GOG, or host a website yourself.

> Not to mention video game exclusives.

This is a completely unrelated issue. The court case is about the rights of a developer and their relationship to the app store. This argument is about the rights of a consumer and I do not see it as even remotely relevant.

> The only reason we are talking about it is because it’s a popular platform.

You're right - the platform being popular is what gives Epic's argument merit. It makes Epic less able to ignore the app store if they want to go after the mobile market. Obviously if the platform wasn't popular then no one would care and this case never would have happened.

> Obviously if the platform wasn't popular then no one would care and this case never would have happened.

Which I think strikes right at the point here. This is practiced throughout the world and throughout industries, but for some reason we think it should be different for mobile phones. I don't see why it should be, especially given that in the overall market, Epic can publish their game across multiple competing platforms: Android, Windows, macOS, Linux, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, etc. and iOS until recently.

In fact, as you mentioned, if you don't like the Apple Store you can go to: Steam, itch.io, GOG, or host a website yourself. If I can't create an arbitrary game and have access to Epic's user base, I don't see how it's different. Can I use Epic accounts on my own indy game?

I think you are narrowly defining the marketplace as being only iOS, when in fact it's much larger, and you're not taking into account that this is all about access to users. In both of these areas, it's hard to find compelling activity for Epic. They can and do publish Fortnite on multiple platforms, and they also arbitrarily restrict access to their own user-base.

Epic just wants to have their cake and eat it too and I have yet to see compelling evidence to the contrary, myself.

The argument is that things should be different for a platform that isn't easily substituted. EGS is easily substituted for Steam because there are no barriers to which store you use on PC aside from installing a new one, and using multiple at a time isn't even much of a burden. The App Store is not easily substituted for anything because there are no major alternatives in the mobile space that don't have the same restrictions, and even ignoring that there's an argument to be made about the cost (monetary and otherwise) to switch platforms that is _much_ higher than switching storefronts on PC.

The one segment you've mentioned that actually works similarly is consoles - Xbox/PlayStation/Switch. These operate much the same way as the App Store and are the reason I myself am torn on whether I agree with Epic. Their argument for why consoles do _not_ apply here is that they are not intended as "general purpose" devices the way a PC or phone is. I don't know if I believe that argument to be convincing, but I absolutely see where they are coming from with everything else.

> I think you are narrowly defining the marketplace as being only iOS, when in fact it's much larger

For the record, a big part of the court case has been (and likely will continue to be) about this point - does it make sense to segment the market in this way?

I see the argument as convicting for the same reason the person above is being dismissive: do people care?

If Facebook, Adobe, Twitter, and Discord care about hosting their apps on PSN, then there can be a case that this is a general purpose usage that should be allowed. In reality, I imagine they don't and even if Sony/Microsoft were forced to open up that their competing stores would be as thriving as those Custom Firmware homebrew stores.

Point #2: ephemerality. There's a 99.999% chance that the PS5 and XSX will be succeeded in a decade by the PS6 and the Xbox Whatever. Would Adobe want to spend all that development time releasing photoshop for PS5, only to need to re-develop it for PS6 6 years later? For what is likely to be an entierly new OS?

in contrast, there's good odds that an app made in 2010 would still work just fine today, barring some outdated Api calls that Google/Apple made great strides to ease the migration on. So that security on not needing to change OS's every generation would incentivize development.

> do people care?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that said companies might not have even thought about trying to do something with those platforms because it was assumed impossible, and they didn't want to go through the effort of a court case to make it so. It's hard to say what would happen if consoles opened up without it actually happening.

> Point #2: ephemerality.

With how much mobile OSs change I'm not sure it's relevant. Apps that aren't kept up to date (esp. when it comes to changes in how the system manages privacy settings) tend to be delisted, and the rate at which those changes happen is much faster than the 7-10 year console cycles where backwards compatibility is a requirement even when major parts of the OS change (see: Win8 -> Win10 kernel transition in the early days of the X1). Admittedly, keeping up with mobile OS changes doesn't usually require a full rewrite of the app, but neither did anything moving from X1/PS4 to XSX/PS5.

> said companies might not have even thought about trying to do something with those platforms because it was assumed impossible

We know now that Epic (obviously) wanted to open negotiaions with Nintendo on EGS deals, even if they haven't started yet and are considered a shot to the moon. I'd be surprised if other companies never put even a bit of thought into the alternate platforms. That is partially was why the court subpeona'd the entire industry for questions and arguments.

>With how much mobile OSs change I'm not sure it's relevant.

I say it's relevant because part of the marketing of app versions is how (relatively) easy it is to migrate, often including automated tools for the job. I highly dought Nintendo and Sony offer similar things (maybe Microsoft). As such they want to encourage that longevity as long as the dev in intersted in maintaining. So it again comes from "do they care"? Google and Apple do.

consoles make no such guarantee. Some years after the next gen becomes current gen, they will leave no option to submit previous generation titles. Both in a physical (stop accepting submissions) and marketing sense (less updates to older consoles, usually just security patches).

It should also be noted that consoles are 1-2 systems specs, and some games highly, highly optimize for that spec. So mimgration is naturally harder because consoles generally give devs almost a full memory block to work with, compared to, say, Window's non-guarantee of memory layout.

> consoles make no such guarantee. Some years after the next gen becomes current gen, they will leave no option to submit previous generation titles. Both in a physical (stop accepting submissions) and marketing sense (less updates to older consoles, usually just security patches).

No, but the maintained lifetime of a game is usually shorter than a full console cycle (within which you absolutely do have that guarantee) so this doesn't affect those games. It's also worth noting that games that came out in 2013 for the X1/PS4 should still run on their newer counterparts with no changes (though this degree of back compat is at least somewhat unusual, so I'll give you that). On the other hand, the mobile space sees many apps get entirely redesigned multiple times in a decade.

> It should also be noted that consoles are 1-2 systems specs, and some games highly, highly optimize for that spec.

First of all, games tend to be optimized for specific hardware features, with "notches" to turn on additional features in the game for each main target spec. Most games these days ship on multiple platforms including PC so the idea that they're optimized for a specific platform isn't really true anymore. Second of all, the previous and current generations added new specs (X1X and PS4 Pro, PS4 -> PS5 and X1 -> XS back compat, XSS/XSX hardware differences) without breaking any compatibility by keeping general architectures the same with some extra support in the OS to smooth over the places that it differs.

> So mimgration [sic] is naturally harder because consoles generally give devs almost a full memory block to work with

This only complicates migrating to platforms that don't use a unified memory architecture and dedicated system resources, it has nothing to do with updating for new console generations.

Full disclosure - I work for Microsoft/Xbox.

>This is practiced throughout the world and throughout industries, but for some reason we think it should be different for mobile phones

uhh, no? Antitrust arises out of the core factor that "this platform is popular and people care". If people didn't care about Windows it wouldn't have gotten an antitrust in the 1990's. If people didn't care about Steel then the Rockerfellers wouldn't have gotten antitrust in 19th century.

Is very much is not different for phones. The only difference is that data doesn't take up physical space. But I hope we've progressed past the web 1.0 arguments on how data isn't powerful.

>n fact, as you mentioned, if you don't like the Apple Store you can go to: Steam, itch.io, GOG, or host a website yourself. If I can't create an arbitrary game and have access to Epic's user base, I don't see how it's different. Can I use Epic accounts on my own indy game?

Itch.io, Steam, Gog are not hosted on IOS. IOS has a marketplace of 10 billion and offers to host general applications, much like a PC (which has been hit by a case like this). Comparing this to selling fortnite skins is very dishonest and telling of your faith in this conversation.

>I have yet to see compelling evidence to the contrary, myself.

Lead a horse to water...

This is why I'm glad that this cases isn't being run by people who are just frustrated at not playing Hades a year earlier on steam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com