←back to thread

Epic celebrates "the end of the Apple Tax" after court win in iOS payments case

(arstechnica.com)
432 points nobody9999 | 10 comments | 12 Dec 25 16:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
bogwog ◴[12 Dec 25 16:54 UTC] No.46245949[source]▶
> ... the appeals court now suggests that Apple should still be able to charge a “reasonable fee” based on its “actual costs to ensure user security and privacy.”

> Speaking to reporters Thursday night, though, Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees,” on the order of “tens or hundreds of dollars” every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review.

Wow, one step forward, and one step back. Good job, Epic.

The outcome is obviously going to be that Apple's store will have the most apps, with the most up to date versions, and with the most free apps/games. I'm sure Fortnite will do just fine though.

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, why would the court allow Apple to act as a gatekeeper for their competitors?

replies(2): >>46246430 #>>46246793 #
Ajedi32 ◴[12 Dec 25 18:07 UTC] No.46246793[source]▶
> why would the court allow Apple to act as a gatekeeper for their competitors

Yeah, this is the fundamental problem, and not something this court ruling does anything to fix. Apple has full control over what software its competitors are allowed to sell. The court's solution? Tell Apple to be more fair when dictating rules to its competitors. Yeah... I'm sure that'll work great.

replies(1): >>46247389 #
ericmay ◴[12 Dec 25 18:56 UTC] No.46247389[source]▶
Yep, on their platform. Just like Wal-Mart and Kroger have full control over what products their competitors are allowed to sell too (in-store versus name brands). Microsoft only makes and sells their games for example for the Windows platform and doesn't allow portability.

As a pattern there's nothing wrong with it.

The crux of the issue is that creation of a mobile operating system that people actually want, like in some other industries, as resulted in two dominant platforms that don't compete all that much with each other. That's a much more interesting and important "problem" to solve than Apple/Google create competing apps on their software distribution platforms.

replies(2): >>46248246 #>>46249189 #
Ajedi32 ◴[12 Dec 25 20:08 UTC] No.46248246[source]▶
My phone that I purchased is not "their" platform. Better analogy would be if Wal-Mart sold me a fridge and then somehow managed to make it so I can only store groceries purchased from Wal-Mart in that fridge. Now if anyone wants to sell me groceries they need to sell them to me through Walmart, otherwise I can't refrigerate them.
replies(1): >>46248386 #
samdoesnothing ◴[12 Dec 25 20:21 UTC] No.46248386[source]▶
As long as you understood the limitations of the fridge you purchased, i.e. you weren't defrauded, what's the problem? Do you really need a nanny state to prevent you from making bad purchases??
replies(4): >>46248511 #>>46250413 #>>46251308 #>>46272232 #
ivell ◴[12 Dec 25 20:32 UTC] No.46248511[source]▶
The problem currently is the duopoly. There are only 2 types of fridges we can buy. And both have the same conditions.
replies(1): >>46248529 #
samdoesnothing ◴[12 Dec 25 20:34 UTC] No.46248529[source]▶
There are many other computing devices that can run operating systems other than Android and iOS, including devices that can run completely unlocked versions of Android. You're just lying.
replies(1): >>46248690 #
1. ryandrake ◴[12 Dec 25 20:45 UTC] No.46248690[source]▶
We're not talking about computing devices in general, we're talking about phones.
replies(1): >>46249159 #
2. samdoesnothing ◴[12 Dec 25 21:25 UTC] No.46249159[source]▶
So am I?

There's Linux phones and phones that run versions of Android that are completely decoupled from Google.

replies(1): >>46249269 #
3. johnnyanmac ◴[12 Dec 25 21:35 UTC] No.46249269[source]▶
So your argument here is "Apple isn't a monopoly. The Fairphone is always ab option"?

I'll keep pounding it in people's heads that 30 years ago Microsoft was hit over a web browser. It's a shame these days people would instead revert that and say "just download Netscape". If that worked, sure. But we have decades of market lock in showing it doesn't

replies(2): >>46249556 #>>46250451 #
4. ericmay ◴[12 Dec 25 22:04 UTC] No.46249556{3}[source]▶
The flaw in the Microsoft comparison is that the web browser was installed in, what, 95% of actual computing devices? Remember phones and all of this other cool technology we have didn't exist.

Today there are many phones to choose from. You can buy an iPhone, or a Pixel, or a Galaxy. You can even buy a more open-source style phone with open-source style stores just like any other generic product feature. There is a marketplace and there is competition, it's just that, unlike what so many people here seem to desire, locked-down stores are what the market prefers.

replies(1): >>46249728 #
5. johnnyanmac ◴[12 Dec 25 22:21 UTC] No.46249728{4}[source]▶
>Remember phones and all of this other cool technology we have didn't exist.

I don't think phones and PCs compete against each other, though. A phone can act like a general computer, but a PC can't act like a phone.

>Today there are many phones to choose from.

We had Linux, mac, BSD and a few other OS's back in the day as well. If we're saying Windows is 95% of PCs back then, I don't think it's controversial saying Apple and Android are 95% of phones. Especially in a day and age where phones are now needed to act as verification for work and school and chat communications are expected to be snappy (so it's not like I can just opt out and go back to dumb phones).

>locked-down stores are what the market prefers.

That's why anti-trust isn't left to "what the market prefers".

Yes, society will always waiver towards idyllic destruction if left ubchecked. People generally "like" monopolies. People yearn for that society on WALL-E where they do minimum work and get maximum dopamine. It's a quirk genes that benefitted us 1000 years ago that haven't adjusted to modern realities.

Governments and non-monopoly businesses alike hate it, though. Don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. Don't want to have a single businessman hold the country hostage later and shift to a plutocracy as they abuse your citizens who work.

That's why it's best to stop it much earlier and not when the company becomes a trillionaire. But now is the 2nd best time.

6. samdoesnothing ◴[12 Dec 25 23:47 UTC] No.46250451{3}[source]▶
Well they aren't a monopoly. They have what, ~50% market share?

MS had 97% market share and were abusing their market dominance to push others out. Apple isn't doing this, so there isn't a valid comparison here.

replies(1): >>46250696 #
7. johnnyanmac ◴[13 Dec 25 00:23 UTC] No.46250696{4}[source]▶
Duopoly isn't a much better comparison here. It's big enough that both apple and Google should be addressed.
replies(1): >>46250967 #
8. samdoesnothing ◴[13 Dec 25 01:06 UTC] No.46250967{5}[source]▶
Seems like there are a relatively large number of competitors to Apple and Google. Eg. Samsung, Motorola, Lenovo, OnePlus, LG, HTC etc. Not to mention Asian brands.

Duopoly might apply if those companies were using their combined dominance to collude and push other competitors out but that isn't really happening as evidenced by the amount of competitors that are in the market.

replies(1): >>46251016 #
9. johnnyanmac ◴[13 Dec 25 01:15 UTC] No.46251016{6}[source]▶
I don't think you're on the same frequency as the court proceedings here. Try to read those first to better understand the context here.

You're doing the equivalent of saying "but Dell and HP make PC's". When the case is about Internet explorer.

replies(1): >>46251558 #
10. samdoesnothing ◴[13 Dec 25 02:50 UTC] No.46251558{7}[source]▶
You brought up the MS antitrust suite and I'm providing context as to why it's not relevant.