Comment by nixpulvis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nixpulvis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Epic took a stand and we should be behind them 100%. This case was never about winning on the letter of the contract law, it was about moving the standard of practice and attempting to gain some ground against the evils of mega-Apple. If you are reading this Grubber post and thinking you agree, that's only because you are used to thinking this way by now.

The courts simply do not understand the power companies like Apple and Google have apparently. The startup cost of a competitor would be astronomical, as we've seen reflected in the quality, cost, and size of the small handful of other smartphone companies recently. Even if we seem new players become competitive, then what's to stop us from being back in this same situation in 10 years? 5 years? This is why we have Laws.

Not even to mention that the telecom companies are still working against progress and taking absurd cuts for themselves.

Hosting, platforming, and The Web are in crisis, as we're all aware. We should be firmly on the side of open access to our (developers) content. Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal.

I'm just so fucking done with this, sorry I can't help but be a bit angry.

> Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal.

I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for developers; far more than they get credit for, in my opinion. For that reason, I think the best option is for them to unbundle their app store developer offerings into pieces that developers can pick & choose from. (eg. as a developer, would you be willing to share 4% extra for a smoother payment experience for users?)

I have previously mentioned this in another HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28369205

> I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for developers; far more than they get credit for, in my opinion.

I think the interesting question is not whether enormous monopolistic trillion-dollar corporations provide value to consumers. They clearly must provide some value or they wouldn't exist at all.

The real question is how much more value would consumers have in an alternate world where these anti-competitive practices were prohibited and these oligopolies were broken up into smaller competing companies?

Without a crystal ball, we can't answer that question with certainty, but we have to make educated guesses in order to have good judgement about the right way to govern the market.

Really, that's not what this lawsuit was about, and the courts aren't supposed to tip the scales based the size of companies, are they? It's clear we need new laws to deal with the problems at hand. The ruling seemed pretty even-handed based on the law, even if you disagree with it.

They failed to even acknowledge the duopoly, simply reciting tired anti-trust. I'm by no means an expert, but surely someone must come along at some point and take a stand for something in order to implement the "new laws to deal with the problems at hand", no? Would we be living in a better world if only a different judge took the case?

If you have a problem caused by a system you are unwilling to change, you cannot be surprised by the perseverance of that problem.

> simply reciting tired anti-trust

That's the judge's job. They're not supposed to come up with novel solutions, they're supposed to apply the relevant case law.

I agree. Unfortunately the politicians who make the laws are deeply in the pocket of business and too busy with the political circus to actually make laws.

The $6 million Epic (mentioned in the daringfireball piece) had to compensate Apple would've been better spent on lobbyists.

A judge makes judgements.

And bees make honey. What’s your point? Contrary to popular opinion, and as explained by the GP, judges only interpret the law, they don’t make it other than that their interpretations can later be cited as case law.

Here's the relevant injunction:

> Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

> Tim Sweeney is high as a kite.

I think not... keep shilling for Apple harder.

> Here’s where I think Sweeney garnered the legal “go fuck yourself”. Sweeney is arguing that Apple, which won the lawsuit, should interpret the court’s anti-steering injunction in a way that pleases Epic, which lost the lawsuit. That’s not how things work.

Is he really trying to argue that the "winner" and "losers" are absolute in this case?! Wild.

P.S. This is all part of the broader "Right to Repair" laws, just at the software level...

No.

Epic does not own Apple's App Store. They bought a license to publish on that platform. Then they violated it and were banned. And the judge agree it's Apple's right to do so, within limits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com