Hacker News Reader

Comment by HatchedLake721 | Hacker News Reader

That makes sense.

Why would you do business ever again with someone who intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you?

After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead, they:

- Reject the offer

- Carry on smearing you

- Lose the court case

- Sweeney says they wouldn’t release iOS version with the pricing still being the same

- Then they decide to do a PR stunt publicly sending a letter and ask to get back into App Store, while hinting they plan to toy with the courts ruling by attempting to put an in-app payment button that mimics Apple’s IAP

And now they play a victim that they're not allowed back in to the App Store because they have no other avenue and they lost the court case.

Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?

View on HN

The problem with this logic, is that Apple isn't really a "business" in this case. Epic and Apple aren't really "business partners". Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.

You can sue the Post Office, lose your case, and know they can't retaliate by stealing all your mail forever. You can sue the Department of Labour, lose a case, and still have the right to hire employees in the future. You can sue the Fire Department, lose a case, and still reasonably trust they won't burn down your house. You can sue your local Power Company, lose your case, and still trust that they can't unilaterally ban you from ever buying Electricity again.

But you can't ever sue Apple, over anything, ever, no matter how evil Apple is, no matter how heinous Apple's activity may be. Because no matter how valid or correct your complain is, no matter what happens, they'll just black-bag your entire digital existence in retaliation.

Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.

Folks are thinking of Apple like it's just a video game console, when the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T. Apple shouldn't be allowed to control what does or does not live in the App Store, for the same reason that Comcast shouldn't even be allowed to decide what websites or services you do/don't use.

> Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity

JFC

Apple allows 3rd-party shit on Macs. The App Store is a store, just like Google Play and Steam etc. And iPhones and iPads are a platform, just like the PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch etc.

Show us one instance where someone violated the T&C of any other store or platform and were still allowed to continue to do business there.

> iPhones and iPads are a platform, just like the PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch etc.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. : Folks are thinking of Apple like it's just a video game console, when the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T.

Even if you think of it as a gaming platform (which it isn't)... there's Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox, PC, Mac, Steam (also on PC and Mac, but separate to itself)... I might have missed some niche platforms. As opposed to mobile, which is Apple and Android.

United States federal interstate system

>> Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.

You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government: they’re retaliating. I don’t understand how you can say “Apple’s retaliatory and discriminatory practices in choosing who to do business with is the touchstone of government” at the same time you list four perfectly good examples of a government entity not being able to do exactly what you say is the touchstone of a government.

You’re wrong. Apple is a private company. Doing business with people you want to do business with, and not doing business with people you don’t want to do business with (barring certain discriminatory practices), is literally what distinguishes private companies from government entities. If you want to argue that the App Store or iPhones or iMacs or MacBooks are somehow critical public infrastructure that should be governed by, apparently, common carrier laws then you should do that directly.

> You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government: they’re retaliating.

Responsible governments doesn't retaliate, oppressive governments tend to retaliate a lot. So you are right, Apple isn't acting like a responsible government, but the argument was that it is acting like an oppressive one.

Somehow acting like Not-X makes you X? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is organized under state laws explicitly as a duck, and sits on top of the water like a duck, it’s an eagle?

No, the argument isn't "Apple is like a government since Apple is retaliating". The argument is "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".

And no, saying "They are retaliating and therefore not a government" is not a good defence to the argument "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".

I understand the definitional argument that is being made, but it still makes no sense. This was the statement: “ Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.”

A quasi government isn’t a government. A privately owned and unregulated entity isn’t a government. That’s the whole point. If you beg the question by assuming Apple is like a government then of course Apple should be treated like a government. But on the face of the analysis, they’re not like a government. You need to support how they’re like a government. What about them is like a government? Everything the GP talks about are ways that Apple is NOT like a government. It does not support the argument that they ARE a government.

It’s like saying “Apple is a duck, but it isn’t acting like a duck because it’s acting like an eagle!” and then when someone says “but Apple is an eagle by law and has always been thought of as an eagle, how did they become a duck?” you responded with “you’re missing the point, I said they’re a duck so they should act like one!”

The comment makes no arguments for this point, though - it establishes an opinion (Apple acting like a government) then starts listing off facts like they support that argument.

> The problem with this logic, is that Apple isn't really a "business" in this case. Epic and Apple aren't really "business partners". Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.

Are there any parallels in history we can point to for stuff like this? Maybe Standard Oil? I've been thinking alot about these massive companies lately, they are so massive and so intertwined in our society that maybe we should consider a new class of laws and regulations for these companies.

I think we should have a new class of laws and regulation called "for the common good" or something like that, and apply it to companies that have more than say 100M users. The libertarian in me hates this, but I think we also have to consider that these companies are larger and more influential then we ever though possible.

Your post would hold up if the court didn’t already decide that Apple is not, in fact, a monopoly. The market in the lawsuit was defined as “digital mobile game transactions”

https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/09/10/epic-v-apple.pdf

The court made that decision under the existing legal framework. That does not mean, nor even imply, that the existing legal framework is fair & just nor that it has kept up with modern structures.

This is because courts in the U.S. tend to not try to 'legislate from the bench' - if you want laws changed you have to get legislators to do it, a lawsuit won't.

the court then has a limited understanding of what a fine line they are walking, both in legal and practical terms.

Many laws and tests - especially the one used to determine monopolistic practices - are horribly outdated and based on ideas and assumptions from before the internet age. That the court failed to see how an app store where an unregulated corporation makes rules without oversight, repercussions or much legal precents - is indeed skirting the line of what constitutes a monopoly is tragic.

Take a look at that judgement - not a single example exists there for digital monopolies. The insidious part of a digital monopoly - as already pointed out - is that there is no precedent and apple are now the digital equivalent of highwaymen.

Expect this to happen more often to the point where these laws and tests are updated for the modern age. One that i foresee is Amazon and their Basics line of products.

> for the same reason that Comcast shouldn't even be allowed to decide what websites or services you do/don't use.

Internet is not regulated like this. ISPs can and do ban you for torrenting or going to certain websites because they're not a general utility.

I agree with this, Epic is forcing Apple into a no-win situation where they either do what Epic wants or come off very poorly to regulators.

Epic doesn't need to win this specific court case to get what they want, all they need is for this to stay top of mind for lawmakers to change the rules in favor of developers.

This is patently false. Apple cannot "black-bag your entire digital existence".

Just stop using Apple devices. They're not the government.

I'm ok with Apple not letting Epic on the App Store so long as Apple doesn't forbid me from doing a private business exchange with Epic on my device.

> Apple doesn't forbid me from doing a private business exchange with Epic on my device

I don't think Apple can do that. What Apple can do, is to not allow Epic to use their distribution service, known as AppStore.

What you install on your iDevice is your own business and Apple cannot do anything about it. That's why jailbreaking your device is completely legal, you own your device you paid for and you can do whatever you like with it.

Epic can develop a jailbreak or use a jailbreak distribution service to distribute their Apps. You can hack your phone and if Epic's licensing allows that, you can install Epic games yourself. You can hack your phone, install a special distribution of Android to you iPhone and install it from there.

Apple can't do anything about it. Not easy as tapping a button you say? Well Apple is not obligated to make any of this easy. They make it very clear that they support app installation through Apple AppStore and and no point they promise to help you out to install apps through any other means. If you want to do that, you will have to do it without the help of Apple.

Or you know, don't buy Apple devices if the arrangement doesn't work for you.

This seems to be overstating Apple’s position as neutral here, they are actively hostile to jailbreakers, and Apple will try to stop you any way they can.

I agree. The practical result of the current situation is that Apple can choose what apps most people can install into the their devices but this needs to be framed correctly because Apple actually targets the developers and not the users when they practically control the app distribution to the devices they sold.

Why is it important? Because when described incorrectly, solutions will also be incorrect. Apple doesn’t control it because Tim Cook gets hard when doesn’t allow some apps into the phones of the customers. They do it because they want to be paid for the intellectual properties and opportunities they provide, they also want to be able to continue selling iPhones at premium prices and in this competitive environment they want to be able to control the working of the devices so to provide premium experience.

> they want to be able to control the working of the devices so to provide premium experience.

Well too fucking bad. They can offer their premium services as a fair competitor in the market and if people want that, they can choose it, and if they don't, they can choose other things.

> They can offer their premium services as a fair competitor in the market and if people want that, they can choose it, and if they don't, they can choose other things.

Yes, that's exactly the situation. If people don't like it, they go buy a Samsung, a Pixel, Xiaomi, a Huawei, a Sony etc. There's no need for Apple be compelled do anything, there are plenty of options when you don't like the Apple offerings.

And those alternatives are not like Bing to Google, these are very viable alternatives where Apple is actually a small minority of the market. It's %50 in the US and much, much less in the rest of the world.

Choice of hardware should not restrict the choice of software.

Jailbreaking, by definition, is using exploits and vulnerabilities in the security of the device to bypass said security. Of course Apple is going to try and stop that. If they didn't, they'd be admitting that they don't care about the security of their devices which is a major factor in why people and companies buy their devices.

Hmm then possibly Apple could simply allow consenting users to install software by means other than their highly-regulated appstore cash grab.

Every major cosumer 'computer' in history has allowed this as far as I can tell. Yet for some reason now in the last few years its unthinkable on specifically Apple devices. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence they make billions of dollars off of this overly draconian "security" framework.

You're conflating device and software. The user owns the device - Apple has no right to stop you using the device as you see fit.

At the software layer? It's been litigated on more than one occasion that a company can't sue people to prevent jailbreaking their own devices.

No one's talking about suing anyone. We're talking about Apple fixing the exploits that allow jailbreakers to do what they do.

I think this just highlights the problem inherent in allowing Apple to be the sole arbiter of what can run on a device you paid for. I should be able to easily install apps that Apple hasn't approved, or in this case, has a legal beef with the company in question.

It's complicated. Right now Apple makes $0 from Fortnite, if they allow them back they will at least get something. Don't let emotions get in the way of business- there is still money to be made. This feels petty on Apple's part unless they are using this to send a message to anyone else who wants to sue them.

I’m fairly certain this was calculated. Someone crunched the numbers and included this into the equation and sticking it to epic came on top. This isn’t a purely emotional decision even though it seems that way.

The landscape is changing so fast that Apple probably will lose control of their app store in the not too distant future.

Despite still being twice as large as iOS, the Android ecosystem isn't doing very well. If Apple isn't a monopolist today and trends continue, it's only a matter of time before it unquestionably is. At that point they aren't going to be able to dictate terms any longer.

> If Apple isn't a monopolist today and trends continue, it's only a matter of time before it unquestionably is.

That's exactly what the judge said.

> In sum, given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.

I suspect it's the latter

Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?

me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes.

> Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?

> me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes.

Even if it risks your future earnings of literally hundreds of billions of dollars?

Apple made about 100 million (0.1 billion) from Fortnite. A lot of money, to be sure.

https://fortune.com/2021/05/19/apple-fortnite-epic-games-100...

But 2020 App store gross revenue was 72 billion, 30% of that is 21 billion and it's growing rapidly.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-...

Making another 0.1 billion to risk losing hundreds of billions in the future seems like a poor strategy.

Your premise seems to be that Epic being back on the app store increases the risk of change for Apple, but I would argue that making some degree of peace with Epic definitely decreases the risk of change for Apple. The only way I can rationalise Apple not allowing them back on is that Apple would like for that to be part of a settlement agreement.

Apple was 'at peace' with Epic before, right up until they got stabbed in the back with the hidden alternative payment option snuck into the game.

Fool me once, shame on you.

I'm sure Fortnite IAP would generate good money for Apple, but it's not enough to justify giving up the control they want to keep, rightly or wrongly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com