←back to thread

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

(www.theverge.com)
1704 points ardit33 | 5 comments | 13 Aug 20 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mapgrep ◴[13 Aug 20 21:45 UTC] No.24149792[source]▶
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate.

But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?

Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it.

Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.

replies(20): >>24150118 #>>24150217 #>>24150279 #>>24150291 #>>24150292 #>>24150369 #>>24150460 #>>24150828 #>>24151413 #>>24152705 #>>24152764 #>>24154029 #>>24154441 #>>24154710 #>>24154759 #>>24154888 #>>24155099 #>>24155703 #>>24155755 #>>24166318 #
dustinmoris ◴[14 Aug 20 07:04 UTC] No.24154710[source]▶
> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system

I fundamentally disagree and this is also a misrepresentation of the current situation.

If I buy an open operating system which advertises that I can run on it what pleases me then I should have the right to carry out this freedom of choice.

However, if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines (which are also open for me to assess myself) and I buy a product for its benefits doing this, then I have a right as a consumer that the company will stick to this and not be forced to change in order to please some dodgy companies or gaming apps which I honestly couldn't care less.

It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. The packaging says secure, long battery life, high quality phone because of walled garden, so I fucking expect Apple to deliver the walled garden promise so I don't have to do the vetting myself. When I buy an iPhone for my kids or parents, then I pay more for it because of Apple's walled garden, because it means I have to spend less time doing dumb things for them which I'd have to do on another operating system.

replies(8): >>24154843 #>>24155021 #>>24155152 #>>24155205 #>>24155210 #>>24155682 #>>24155737 #>>24161234 #
1. erostrate ◴[14 Aug 20 09:22 UTC] No.24155682[source]▶
This argument works as long as there is healthy competition, so that consumer's preferences get reflected in the offer. If the market is a monopoly or duopoly you could get very undesirable outcomes.
replies(1): >>24157036 #
2. dustinmoris ◴[14 Aug 20 12:32 UTC] No.24157036[source]▶
The point is unlike a real monopoly which is due to real entry barriers (e.g. train operators need train tracks, internet companies need cables, phone operators need antennas and satellites, etc.) the mobile OS isn't a monopoly or duopoly. Neither Apple or Android were ever the only mobile OS providers. There was Microsoft over a long period of time, Blackberry, Nokias own operating system and many other smaller ones. Neither Apple or Google have any advantage which Microsoft or Nokia didn't have either in consumer base and market share of mobile phones. Same for Blackberry. The only difference is that consumers have actively rejected the competition because Apple (and Google) exactly delivers what they want.

Now arguing that consumers are disadvantaged because they don't get what they want is falsifying the actual state of the market, when really they get exactly what they want and it's only some bad actors like addictive abusive gaming companies or other dodgy businesses which are doing more harm than help to our society and they want to force Apple or Google into opening more up to allow them even shadier practices.

Nothing stops anyone to create a more open mobile OS. There is no actual barrier to enter like in what real monopolies or duopolies have.

EDIT:

It's also important to remember that Apple hasn't invented their strict walled garden after Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry left the competition. They always had their walled garden as a feature, and that is proof that customers actively chose to use Apple despite having a healthy competition of other open marketplaces, which clearly didn't deliver what consumers wanted. Consumers don't have the time to vet everything themselves. They value Apple's proposition and are even willing to pay more for an app on average than on any other mobile system. People change their phones every 1-2 years and if the walled garden wouldn't appeal to consumers then we'd see everyone have an Android by now for a very long time.

replies(2): >>24157071 #>>24162327 #
3. rini17 ◴[14 Aug 20 12:36 UTC] No.24157071[source]▶
So you say: if Apple rejects your app, just ask users to reinstall another OS or buy another device?
replies(1): >>24157151 #
4. dustinmoris ◴[14 Aug 20 12:45 UTC] No.24157151{3}[source]▶
Yes, I say if Apple's walled garden feature doesn't appeal to a user, then don't buy an iPhone.

If Apple was to change how their App Store operates and it stops appealing to the mass, then the mass will react and Apple will see sales drop over time and consumers will migrate to Android. Not the next day, but it would certainly happen like it did for Nokia users, Blackberry users, etc.

However, Apple didn't change their App Store guidelines. Users who bought a phone get exactly what they got on the day of purchase. It's Epic who tries to violate a feature which consumers have purchased and now Epic is suing Apple for having such a feature to begin with. This is not Apple vs. Consumers. This is a gaming company not finding a way to apply their shady practices on the Apple consumer based and they are pissed off. Consumers are happy for it though.

5. 8note ◴[14 Aug 20 19:37 UTC] No.24162327[source]▶
Isn't the barrier to entry that Epic needs to become a phone manufacturer? It's not like phone users can sideload another OS to play fortnite either.