Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiderice | Hacker News Reader

I find it telling that you use AWS as an example because they are different than the apple model, while ignoring all the companies using the exact same model as apple, including how Epic charges developers to host content on the Epic store.

View on HN

Epic is a great example. Their own store lists alternative stores on the Epic store, like itch.io. But they don't take a cut of games bought from those stores. Once you launch itch, you're in itch.

Steam is a better example as Epic is operating at a loss position to disrupt the incumbent.

My friends and I play Apex through Steam, which I downloaded for free. When you click to purchase "Apex coins", it takes you straight to EA's website. Apple wants to enforce a cut on every purchase of in-game currency. Steam does not do this.

And Valve allows you to sell steam keys on your own website also without paying the cut, so long as you don't undercut the steam store.

Steam does take a cut for microtransactions, very likely force price parity, and put the developers under NDAs:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/1ogbo7/will_mo...

They take a cut for microtransactions that they process, but you are free to use your own service. They do require price parity. That link doesn't seem related at all.

>you are free to use your own service

Do you have any sources on how restrictive valve are or have been with that, or is that just speculation? Can developers default to their own payment systems and bypass valve's, or is theirs required to take a secondary, less-accessible option (when it's even allowed)?

From the same thread, the mtx cut taken was a dealbreaker for redfall studios, so it certainly sounds like they didnt get the option for their own mtx transaction service: https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/1ogbo7/will_mo...

If the direct links to comments aren't working, try logging into your reddit account.

This would be true if they listed "alternative store_s_", but what they actually did is add itch.io to their store in a token way once they started the lawsuit in order to say "Look, we have no problem working with other stores". It's a stunt for the lawsuit. Even the Itch founder who signed the deal said they basically found it bemusing and an effort to gain legal leverage without really doing anything else.

It'd be like if Apple took all of the developers who testified against Apple, reduced their commission to 0% in perpetuity, and then asked the judge to throw out their testimony because the complaints were moot.

(That being said, I do think there are conditions where stores would/should allow other stores, and I think those conditions could be more permissive than the Roblox example. Apple should, medium term, resolve the GeForce Now/XCloud objections.)

I bought The Division 2 after seeing a promotion on the Epic store. To install it, you have to install the Ubisoft store Uplay, which is launched through an integration with the Epic store.

After playing that game, I saw promotions for Assassin's Creed Odyssey on Uplay, and purchased it. I later went on to purchase many other games on Uplay.

In short, Epic allows Ubisoft to sell games on its store, for which they presumably pay a cut - for those sales. But Epic has no problems letting Ubisoft require their store be installed for those games, and if you buy something there - even though the Epic Launcher installed it - they don't get a cut.

This is more akin to the App Store installing Fortnite - which Apple could get a cut out of, but not getting a cut for purchases in the app.

Both Apple and Valve (Steam) allow similar arrangements, although not precisely the same. EA games on Steam, and Ubisoft games on Steam before they left Steam, require installing Origin and UPlay respectively. But don't you find it notable that Epic does not distribute Uplay on its own, unbundled from purchases?

On the Apple side, it's ok for applications to require the user make an account on services like Uplay (I believe several Ubisoft games require this; and Fortnite requires the Epic equivalent). You can then use that account to buy stuff on the stores. It's not an exact parallel because there are no (non-jailbreak) external app stores on the iPhone, but it's a close parallel.

There's no device or platform for which the Epic Store is the only way to get apps, so it shouldn't be held to the same standard as Apple's App Store.

I’m not sure what standard you are appealing to? Who cares if Apple only lets whatever they want on their own store? It’s their store. I hope Microsoft or Amazon would get back in the phone game and allow alternate stores.

He's saying the App Store should be held to a different standard because it is the ONLY store for iPhones. That isn't true for the Epic store - you can just install one of the other stores, or purchase from a different method.

Everyone should be held to the same standard of respecting private property. You know what you are getting into when going onto apples store; if you don’t like it then encourage all your clients to use Android.

Respecting private property? Whose property is an iPhone? Apple's or the end user's? Whose (intellectual) property is the Epic Store? Apple's or Epic's? Apple wants to use the only thing that's theirs in the equation (the App Store) to restrict an interaction between both of the other things that aren't theirs.

Yea, their OS, their store, their software stack. Sure, you own the device, so put whatever OS you want on it. But you can’t force Apple to write their OS however you want except by market forces. Well, you could try using extreme tactics like government regulation, but that’s a severe overreach and uncalled for just because you don’t like the way apple writes their software.

> Sure, you own the device, so put whatever OS you want on it.

Apple keeps you from doing that.

Didn’t realize, I wish they wouldn’t. even more reason to not buy Apple (I’m typing this on an iPhone :) )

I agree with you that I wish they would allow it. I agree that I should be able to put windows 10 on my iPhone. Thanks for the back and forth, and we may not be able to get past our starting assumptions about the nature of trade/commerce, but I still wouldn’t want to legally force apple to do anything. People should definitely make a big stink about it, though. Thanks for the back and forth, but I’ll leave it there.

> It’s their store.

But once you buy a phone from them, it's your phone, not theirs. You shouldn't have to use their store exclusively on your phone, but since you do, it should be subject to way stricter rules regarding anticompetitiveness and unfairness than non-exclusive stores that other platforms have.

Moreover, once AWS has sold storage, their duty isn't over. They must provide the compute and traffic. That's why they deserve more rent than Apple.

When someone uses an app downloaded from the App Store, the compute is provided by the device owned and paid for by the user. Apple does not own it or maintain it anymore.

And the compute is either completely provided by the device or is shared by the app vendor.

Apple does not give anything in this scenario. They only take.

I agree it is your phone, you should be able to put whatever OS you want on it if you are unhappy with the default. But don’t take the extreme position of forcing apple through law to write software the way you want. You have other options, buy an Android device.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com