Is that even close to a tit for tat? How many people would be upset because they couldn't have some "high end" bag vs how many would be upset about not having a mobile device?
Yeah sure I'm simplifying a lot but the point still stands, for each category they are selling, they have thousands of competitors. I can't say the same on the Apple / Google duopoly.
First, pretty sure they waive the unreal engine license royalties for sales on the EGS.
Second, the timed exclusive offers an even lower sales percentage to epic for being exclusive to EGS for that time period. The developer has a choice to get a larger cut in exchange for not listing elsewhere for a period. That's actually competition in action. Offering better deals to persuade developers and customers to your platform.
They are NOT saying if you don't list on the EGS you can't list on PC at all, which would be a more comparable stance to what Apple do.
They bought the rights to a game that I previously purchased on Steam (Rocket League), then promptly dropped Linux and Mac support and moved everything to the Epic Games Store.
A fresh computer won't matter. You still have the license on Steam. It would only be a problem if trying to play on an unsupported platform, as is the case with Linux.
We need more strongly worded regulations / verdicts to tame these anti-competitive behaviors.
Whichever country drafts the next regulation on the same line should incorporate a clause something like "Users must be free to create, distribute & install any software / applications on their own devices without any involvement of Platform Operator, with equal access to APIs available to native stores".
I'm sure the regulation is plenty strong, given that trying to play a game of rules lawyering is something that doesn't really fly in the EU. The spirit of the law matters here, and I'm convinced that Apple will pay the price for their complete nonsense soon enough.
Would not recommend. These intel MacBooks are awful. They’re so cheap because every person that had one dumped them as soon as possible for M1/M2 machines.
Buying an Android phone from a non-Google manufacturer gives much less money to Google than buying an Apple phone gives to Apple. Most here have the technical skills to follow that up by installing F-Droid and thereby avoid paying Google anything through the Play Store or ads.
Also, the mere fact that that is possible sheds some doubt on the assertion that Google is worse than Apple, at least if we're looking at the user freedoms advocated for by the top-level commenter.
True, but from what I've observed most of the people on threads like this decrying Apple's behavior are regular Apple customers who wish they could have the freedoms that exist outside of the Apple world while still having all the perks of buying Apple. These people are keenly aware of the problems they have with Apple and yet they inexplicably feel completely disempowered to do anything about it. They shouldn't switch to try to hurt Apple's bottom line (it won't in those quantities), but they should switch to get the freedoms they feel are so important.
Android + F-Droid are a thing. If you want to get really fancy you can even install a Google-free ROM, but that's hardly necessary to gain the freedoms that Apple denies you.
Yes, but those of us outside of the Apple ecosystem don't try to introduce legislation that requires Samsung to sell phones with metal cases or that requires Google to improve the UX coherence of Android. We look at the options and make the judgement call.
> Whichever country drafts the next regulation on the same line should incorporate a clause something like "Users must be free to create, distribute & install any software / applications on their own devices without any involvement of Platform Operator, with equal access to APIs available to native stores".
No, the OP I'm quoting is an Apple user [0], as is almost everyone who complains about Apple's rules on HN. Most Android users don't care because it doesn't affect them.
The way these discussions usually go is that a bunch of Apple users complain about the restrictions, a bunch of Apple users say they like them, and a few Android users like myself remind the complainers that there are, in fact, other options that don't involve forcing Apple to take away the rules that most iOS users appreciate having.
So what if they’re an iPhone user? The topic at hand is about legislation coming from outside the Apple ecosystem. It doesn’t matter if it’s Android or a politician.
The rest of your post reads like you just have a general deep seated disdain for Apple users.
> So what if they’re an iPhone user? The topic at hand is about legislation coming from outside the Apple ecosystem. It doesn’t matter if it’s Android or a politician.
I'm not talking about the EU law and neither was OP—OP is proposing a clause that they would like future laws to include, a clause that doesn't actually exist in any real regulation. I'm talking about their proposal and similar proposals coming from other random commenters on HN who overwhelming are within the Apple ecosystem.
> The rest of your post reads like you just have a general deep seated disdain for Apple users.
Not at all! There are plenty of good reasons to choose Apple. One of the biggest reasons is that they provide an extremely integrated and curated experience, which is really valuable for most smartphone users.
What I disapprove of is people who try to pretend that they have no choice but to buy an iPhone and then attempt to force Apple to fundamentally alter the product they're offering (which, again, most of their customers enjoy) when there are already valid options out there that serve their need for absolute user freedom.
I am all for more open marketplaces for software, and I agree that Apple doesn’t seem to be respecting the intent of this legislation…
But these complaints, from these specific companies, read a bit like: Apple’s walled garden is problematic because it won’t let me build my own walled garden on their platform >:(
If I can't transfer ownership of "stuff" between the stores?(installation platforms), or if I can get banned from a "store" and lose access to precious products purchases then it is definitely a walled garden. Maybe not in the original definition of the word.
Maybe if we compared it to a car dealership. Imagine if you could only buy and sell replacement parts for your car through the dealership where you bought it. Or if you try service a car and can't because you can only do that at the original dealer, etc.
This whole "walled garden" stuff will morph into region locking that we had before.
Isn't what your describing what's being changed actualy ?
You currently buy an apple phone and can only buy apps from apple "dealership"
This will allow you to buy apps from different "dealerships".
That does not guarantee "dealerships" which provides the behaviour you want, but it makes it possible from what I understand.
Does any TV channel have to pay anything to LG, Sony, Samsung, etc to show its broadcast on one of their TV sets? No. So app developers should not have to pay Apple anything if they are not using any Apple service to deliver their apps. Apple sold the hardware, it ends there.
61 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 95.4 ms ] threadLVMH is their biggest company. Got to hit 'em where it hurts.
It only hurts a French billionaire. I doubt many Europeans give a solitary shit about the fortunes of LVMH.
Because, you know, I can also imagine a world where a lot of things are different from what they look like now. But that doesn't matter.
First, pretty sure they waive the unreal engine license royalties for sales on the EGS.
Second, the timed exclusive offers an even lower sales percentage to epic for being exclusive to EGS for that time period. The developer has a choice to get a larger cut in exchange for not listing elsewhere for a period. That's actually competition in action. Offering better deals to persuade developers and customers to your platform.
They are NOT saying if you don't list on the EGS you can't list on PC at all, which would be a more comparable stance to what Apple do.
And Apple offers far more than a gaming engine.
Whichever country drafts the next regulation on the same line should incorporate a clause something like "Users must be free to create, distribute & install any software / applications on their own devices without any involvement of Platform Operator, with equal access to APIs available to native stores".
Just stop buying and using Apple products.
Hitting their bottom line is much more effective than waiting for governments to step in.
You can get a 2019 16" for around $440 right now and the screen and speakers are amazing :) Been gaming on it too.
Buying this far down the chain keeps the dollars out of apples pockets.
Also, the mere fact that that is possible sheds some doubt on the assertion that Google is worse than Apple, at least if we're looking at the user freedoms advocated for by the top-level commenter.
>Just stop buying
I cannot remember a single time this actually happened at a noticable scale as a response to a tech company's anti-competitive shenanigans.
Android + F-Droid are a thing. If you want to get really fancy you can even install a Google-free ROM, but that's hardly necessary to gain the freedoms that Apple denies you.
Doesn’t that tell you instead that the latter is a higher priority?
It’s not like the inverse isn’t true as well. People outside the Apple ecosystem who want the benefits. They make the opposite priority call.
> Whichever country drafts the next regulation on the same line should incorporate a clause something like "Users must be free to create, distribute & install any software / applications on their own devices without any involvement of Platform Operator, with equal access to APIs available to native stores".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39569946
Your statement would make more sense if inverted? That people within the Apple ecosystem aren’t trying to change how Samsung or Google operate
The way these discussions usually go is that a bunch of Apple users complain about the restrictions, a bunch of Apple users say they like them, and a few Android users like myself remind the complainers that there are, in fact, other options that don't involve forcing Apple to take away the rules that most iOS users appreciate having.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37632607
The rest of your post reads like you just have a general deep seated disdain for Apple users.
I'm not talking about the EU law and neither was OP—OP is proposing a clause that they would like future laws to include, a clause that doesn't actually exist in any real regulation. I'm talking about their proposal and similar proposals coming from other random commenters on HN who overwhelming are within the Apple ecosystem.
> The rest of your post reads like you just have a general deep seated disdain for Apple users.
Not at all! There are plenty of good reasons to choose Apple. One of the biggest reasons is that they provide an extremely integrated and curated experience, which is really valuable for most smartphone users.
What I disapprove of is people who try to pretend that they have no choice but to buy an iPhone and then attempt to force Apple to fundamentally alter the product they're offering (which, again, most of their customers enjoy) when there are already valid options out there that serve their need for absolute user freedom.
The letter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39565975
But these complaints, from these specific companies, read a bit like: Apple’s walled garden is problematic because it won’t let me build my own walled garden on their platform >:(
Maybe if we compared it to a car dealership. Imagine if you could only buy and sell replacement parts for your car through the dealership where you bought it. Or if you try service a car and can't because you can only do that at the original dealer, etc.
This whole "walled garden" stuff will morph into region locking that we had before.
You currently buy an apple phone and can only buy apps from apple "dealership"
This will allow you to buy apps from different "dealerships". That does not guarantee "dealerships" which provides the behaviour you want, but it makes it possible from what I understand.