Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The comparison Apple made in the court case was not primarily to Steam or Google, it was to the consoles. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all take a 30% cut of all of Epic's transactions across their respective platforms. Apple argued, and persuaded the judge, that Epic's targeting of Apple specifically for it's 30% share was unreasonable given that Epic was happily paying the fee to all the other platforms:

> Indeed, for example, Epic Games has agreed to such a rate on all Fortnite transactions via the Microsoft (Xbox) Store, the PlayStation Store, the Nintendo eShop, and Google Play. Epic Games has also agreed to extra payments for certain platform holders above and beyond the standard 30% commission rate. For example, for all Fortnite transactions via the PlayStation Store, Epic Games agreed to make additional payments to Sony above this commission rate based on the amount of time that PlayStation users play Fortnite cross-platform.

The judge forced Apple to allow transactions to take place off of the platform, but she explicitly noted that Apple would still be entitled to a commission on said sales.

Apple sees their App Store arrangement as similar to Upwork, Rover, or any number of other marketplaces, which all have policies preventing users from meeting through the system but transacting outside of it. From their perspective, if they hooked you up with the sale, then they're entitled to a commission. If you think you can do better without their sales, you're welcome to pull out of their marketplace, and if they find that you're abusing their marketplace they'll hasten you to the door.

That is, as far as the judge was concerned, perfectly legal, and I'm having a hard time not seeing it as a reasonable position to take.

[0] https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

Poor abused broker argument is invalid while Apple prevents side loading.

Yes consoles prevent side loading too, and it's exactly as wrong there too, though, I would also say there is an argument that a phone is in a different class of necessity than a game console, and could easily be argued to require different rules and consumer/society protections. A phone not only is a central and practically required part of general life today, companies like Apple and Google go further and perform many many actions to insinuate and embed and integrate and entangle their phone and their attached ecosystem into as many aspects of the users life as possible. They are not neutral, and the resulting user entrapment is not of their users own choice and creation, even though there are no guns to any heads. Apple and Google are absolutely equivalent to Phillip Morris when it comes to the users voluntarily consuming a product that is bad for them.

Point of all that is, phones are not game consoles, and not only would that be true naturally just because of how one is a necessary tool for conducting life, while the other is not, the valid culpability of the phone maker is even more compounded when you factor their own actions to amplify the users dependence on them. They actively seek it and do many different things to get it and strengthen it, from advertising to policy to tech functionality. You can't do that, and still be innocent of responsibility for it's effects.

The only valid thing I see is the argument that if Epic agree to the same deal from MS and Sony, meaning all the same significant factors not just the cost, then it will require some non-trivial argument to claim that Apple has harmed them.

Game consoles should be considered appliances, phones as general purpose computing devices.

Is "general purpose computing devices" a relevant factor with current legislation? Is this yet another area where people want activist judges when it suits their agenda?

It is in right-to-repair legislations going on right now. "general purpose computing devices" and "gaming consoles" are two legally distinct classes of electronics.

Game consoles are general purpose computing devices.

Most right-to-repair legislation is singling gaming consoles out as excluded while general purpose computing devices are not. Legally, gaming consoles are not general purpose computing devices at the moment.

I know they legally aren't, my point is more that the difference between a PS5 and an iPhone when it comes to general purpose computing capability is entirely arbitrary. If Sony is allowed to claim that their perfectly normal desktop tower running their proprietary flavour of Linux is not a general purpose computing device because reasons, then Apple should be free to claim the same for their phones (and vice versa).

It seems ironic to argue that Apple shouldn't get the same treatment as Sony/MS because phones are not game consoles, when the primary litigator in this case is Epic. Apparently there is a societal need for Fortnite to not have to pay the Apple Tax.

Mildly.

Well, Epic pays Nintendollars to Nintendo, which are cheaper than Apple's Timcoins, so it makes sense that Apple should charge lower platform fees.

I get the argument, but it falls flat for me. Consoles are basically appliances with a primarily singular purpose: video games. Smart phones, in my opinion, are general purpose computers that should be treated differently. Games are a small subset of what people use smart phones for.

I agree that smart phones should be general purpose computers, but that's why I use Android. iPhones are explicitly designed to not be general purpose computers, and that's part of the appeal for a lot of people.

The only criteria that should be a controlling factor for whether something is a "general purpose computer" or not, or rather, which amount of control end-users should have over it, is the device's raw computing power. Anything else is prone to abuse and is anti-consumer.

If that law were old enough, it'd probably cover most modern toasters.

Good.

A toaster is obviously not a general purpose computing device. It's a device for making toast. A law regarding computing devices that treats it the same as a desktop PC probably won't handle either ideally.

My wife doesn't want a general purpose computer in her pocket. She wants to be able to download and install an app with near-complete confidence that it won't steal her credit card. That desire is at odds with having a general purpose computing device.

This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?

> This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?

There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy.

Much like the right to privacy, data control and GDPR, it didn't matter that many services relied on tracking-based ad revenue to survive, the user's right to privacy superseded that, and so the law was passed.

This is somewhat the same principle. The general "digital right" to control, or to at least have the same degree of control as the manufacturer (for cases where not even they can control it fully after it comes out of the factory), is becoming an increasingly important thing with every passing day. It's no longer only about taste, but about public policy.

I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about needs. A huge portion of the population wants to outsource their electronic security to someone else. They want a closed, but secure, ecosystem.

You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them, but I'm not seeing how that's a more pro-consumer stance than Apple's willingness to provide what customers want.

> You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them

Not really. In fact, that security and safety can be enforced even under the framework I'm proposing. Windows Defender is quite good these days, same on Android. It really doesn't compare to the early Win32/KitKat days.

"Outsourcing security to someone else" is a slippery slope of a DRM, anti-repair and anti-ownership future. We should be striving for more individual ownership and control over the devices and assets that we rely on for our daily lives, not less.

Unless you wrote windows defender, isn't relying on it for security outsourcing security to someone else?

Yeah, but the point is that, no matter the degree of trust you may individually have, the consumer should always have the full control, which should extend to all devices, not just a choice at the time of purchase.

Ok, so there can be two kinds of iPhones, one for people that want control of their devices, and the other for people who don't. It can be built into the physical phone so there's no chance of compromise. Better?

They can provide that, they just can't prevent others from providing that same thing.

>There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy.

Really? Do you have "full control" over your TV? Your dishwasher? Your microwave? Your car?

I hear this argument on HN, but I've never met an iPhone customer who complained about not being able to side-load apps. Anecdata to be sure, but Apple's goal is to satisfy customers and therefore sell lots and lots of phones. If there were significant customer demand, Apple would work to satisfy that demand.

> Really? Do you have "full control" over your TV? Your dishwasher? Your microwave? Your car?

You should. I would 100% support a law that forces companies to not implement digital locks that only they can open, even when the device is no longer owned by them.

>but I've never met an iPhone customer who complained about not being able to side-load apps

I find that hard to believe. I think every person I know who owns an iphone and knows what side loading is would rather it were possible.

> I've never met an iPhone customer who complained about not being able to side-load apps

Hello, I'm an iPad user and I hate I can't side load apps and that there's no compilers or alternative web engines on the App store.

It's not at odds at all. Tell your wife not to install third party stores or payment processors and she'll have the locked down device she wants while the rest of us can more fully use the portable computers we paid so much for.

Except you didn't pay for a portable computer. You are technically savvy. You knew what you were buying. Now that you own it, you want something different. I don't begrudge you deciding you want something different, I just don't think it is reasonable to imply that you were sold something different than you purchased.

I did pay for a portable computer. You don't get to tell me what I paid for and didn't. You have no authority here.

I agree with you, but it's not about spouses or elderly parents. I have been designing chips and custom hardware for multiple decades. Guiding and/or implementing custom firmware for a similar time span. I am highly technical and I still want a phone with a tightly controlled ecosystem that is robust and it isn't sending all my personal data back to the mother ship for them to monetize. The App Store is one of the best features of the iPhone. There are a lot of bad players doing all sorts of things. I like having Apple guarding the gates.

The thing is, I think I am similar to the vast majority of Apple's customers in my preference for the App Store. Finding and installing software was a hassle before the store. The simplicity of app management with the store has been a revelation. Some will say that my preference shouldn't keep others from getting side-loading and I get that, but I imagine creating that installation path will also create a new exploit path. I don't think most customers will be happy if Apple has to allow side-loading and that leads to weaker security. Hopefully I'm wrong and weakened security can be avoided, but I'm skeptical for now.

A large segment of the HN readership doesn't seem to understand that many of their desires with respect to a device put them in a small minority of Apple's customers. If Apple is satisfying the vast majority of customers, why is that a bad thing?

> Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?

I think Apple not providing the other option is anti-consumer. It can be as on the macs, where you have SIP and you can disable it if you so wish, although it takes some effort and is not straightforward. The phone can have 2 modes, a safe mode and an unsafe mode, and it's up to people to choose which mode they want to operate in. So your wife still has the option to have the non-general purpose computer in her pocket, and others can have it as a general purpose computer.

Why should Apple be obligated to serve two product categories? I have a phone that serves the role of general purpose computer just fine. I run mostly open source apps and even have a real terminal. It's just not an Apple phone.

I, and a lot of other people, buy iPhones specifically because they are not Androids - it's hard to break them, install something horrible, etc. It's also why I recommend iPhones to older folk, like my mom, and from what I can tell, the need for me to help them out has decreased a ton since they stopped using Androids.

So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer? Why can't there be one phone maker that caters to those who don't want something like that? Why can't you just use Android, which is that? I just find it incredibly unfair that everything has to be the same for some odd reason for people who keep pushing for these things.

> So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer?

Not the parent commenter, but I suppose that the main problem is that there is a duopoly. So either they should be forced to make general-purpose computers (so they can be made to do what the user wants), or there should be more competition, so you can have your locked-down computer, and I can have my general purpose computer.

What is preventing more companies from creating more mobile operating systems? Are they hamstrung by efforts from the duopoly to keep them down? Or is it just hard? If the latter, should government take action to help foster their creation, like tax breaks?

Creating an alternative OS isn't the problem, it's that manufacturers like Apple prevent installing alternative operating systems.

What is stopping a company from making a phone that can run other operating systems?

I am genuinely curious to hear from people who have domain knowledge, I’m not trying to make a point

There's nothing stopping a company from making such a phone. The pixel phones from google can probably already boot a regular linux kernel for example if you unlock the bootloader. Then we'd need documentation to be able to actually write drivers. Another part of the problem is how fast the tech is moving outside of the iphones, which makes it harder for anybody to focus on specific hardware.

It's all about the apps.

Microsoft tried doing this with Windows phone, but they couldn't get traction among developers, which made their OS unattractive to end users, which made it unattractive to developers, which made it unattractive ...

Users don't just want a phone, they want a phone that can run all their apps. Developers only publish their apps to the App Store and Google Play, if you want to run the apps that your users want, you need to interface with one of those. This is even harder than the "Linux on the desktop" problem. If you have a good web browser, good support for .exe files (via Wine) and apps that can support most of the file formats users need (notably Microsoft Office files), you have a desktop OS that can replace Windows for most users, no cooperation from Microsoft or third-party developers necessary. You can't do that on mobile, even if you design a perfect iOS or Android emulator, users still won't be able to download any apps unless you get access to a store.

> So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer?

They are already general purpose computers that have been locked down.

I strongly believe users should be able to own their devices no matter what kind. While users should be able to keep those devices locked down if they choose, they should also be able to unlock them and run any software or OS they choose.

I think this applies to consoles just as much as it does to smartphones and tractors.

Allowing companies to prevent users from owning their devices puts less tech savy consumers who don't understand the risks at the mercy of the giant corporations.

Why can't you simply download everything from the App Store and avoid sideloading?

If enough people refuse to sideload, developers will continue to provide the App Store as an option. Then you can pay Apple for their curation services if you find those services valuable, and other people won't be forced to pay.

Why can’t I recommend a device to my elderly parents where I don’t have to worry about social media apps that trick them into installing apps from outside Apple’s App Store? Apps which are then free to ignore Apple’s guidelines and policies and other anti-deceptive policies?

Apple’s App Store review may not be perfect but Apple trying to police apps to make them adhere to some guidelines is better than nothing.

Remember with Facebook pushed a sneaky VPN as part of their iOS app so they could better track users?

You can't trust Apple to protect your elderly parents from being tricked. There are so many stories of people (even children) who unknowingly spent thousands of dollars on the App Store and in app purchases.

Compared to that, a Facebook app with better tracking is trivial.

> social media apps that trick them into installing apps from outside Apple’s App Store

Apple could make this against the terms of service for App Store apps, and ban any apps that violate them. If the sideloading option exists, then Apple should be free to regulate the behavior of in-App Store behavior more strictly.

I feel like this "console" vs. "general computer" distinction is something Apple invented for the sake of their legal argument, and people are just accepting it as a thing. There's no reason why you can't have a console that allows sideloading. In fact, I have one: the Playdate. It has an on-device app store, but if I want I can also install any app manually. Most users who have a Playdate will only ever use the app store--they will get a curated set of apps, and every game purchase will have a cut taken by Playdate. It's sticky because it's the most convenient, and it's already on the device. This is the "safe" experience that the average user wants. But if you want to do your own thing and install some other app you found on the internet, you can! You can also run your own apps that you write!

> I, and a lot of other people, buy iPhones specifically because they are not Androids - it's hard to break them, install something horrible, etc.

Sounds like those Mac v PC ads from 20 years ago.

Do you think Android users are constantly getting viruses on their phones and having their bank accounts drained?

As the NSO spyware has proven, if someone wants to break your phone, they can. Apple's 30% protection racket won't be able to intervene.

I don't think or care about any of this. But my anecdotal evidence of seeing my elderly family members requiring a lot less help to clean their phones from unwanted spamware/adware that is crippling the device performance has gone down noticeably since the move from Android to iPhone. And I care a lot about that. All that power of Android is great for the Hacker News crowd, not so great for regular people who might not be very tech savvy.

I think this is becoming increasingly less true. The primary media center in our home is an XBox Series X. We use it for games, movies, television, youtube, and music. It gets much more use playing videos and music than it does running games these days.

If I can’t install any software I want on it it is not a general purpose computer. I’ve always compared phones more to consoles.

Phones and iOS tablets won’t be general purpose computers until I can easily side load and unlock root.

> Games are a small subset of what people use smart phones for.

True, but they are also 70% of Apple's app store revenue.

Hence Gruber's suggestion of separate commissions for games vs. other apps.

This is a fair point, but I would note that physical distribution exists for the consoles, which necessitates an alternative marketplace — the used market.

The judge's comments were about the electronic stores of each platform. The distribution costs are only different for physically purchased games, Apple has to distribute just as many devices per customer as Nintendo does.

It's important to mention that consoles are typically sold at-cost or at a loss, so the markup is required to maintain the business model. This is not true of iPhones.

The most popular console of this generation, the Nintendo Switch, has always been sold at a profit.

About $40 per unit in profit, compared to about $600 per unit for the iPhone. I'd probably feel differently if Apple clearly had to make it's margins through software.

Most premium luxury brands are sold at a higher margin because that's how they make their money- by appearing premium.

I believe the previous poster’s point was that it is that very luxury brand margin that incentivizes Apple to protect customer data rather than sell it. The privacy is part of the luxury brand, and the luxury branding pays for the privacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com