
Apple ordered to not block Epic’s Unreal Engine, Fortnite to stay off App Store - jmsflknr
https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/24/apple-ordered-to-not-block-epic-games-unreal-engine-but-fortnite-to-stay-off-app-store/
======
diebeforei485
I'm always frustrated by journalists who never mention the case number (why
not?), let alone link to a copy of the actual ruling.

Here's a PDF of the ruling, I think it's worth reading: [https://cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...](https://cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/cf2dcbbf_4f0b_4762_94fc_6b0f42ede3ff.pdf)

~~~
henryfjordan
> why not?

Easy: a link off their site doesn't earn them any money. They want to you stay
on their domain.

~~~
alkonaut
Is there a news site that does the opposite? Always cites sources, provide
ample links throughout text?

 _that’s_ the site I’d subscribe to.

~~~
joshvm
Believe it or not, Wikipedia.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events)

~~~
alkonaut
Thanks. That works for international news reporting. It's a bit thin on local
coverage, and anything that is non-news but usually part of a newspaper
(opinion/debate, reviews...) isn't there. The easier it is to get the news bit
everywhere, the more important the other parts of a newspaper becomes to me.

------
Betelgeuse90
Some of my highlights:

\- "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused
by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct
element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's
evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not
irreparable injury.”

\- "While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent
take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero
percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free."

\- "The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic
(COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and
providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. However, the showing is not
sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public
interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual
agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited,
proceedings."

\- "With respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the calculus
changes. The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal
Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on
both third-party developers and gamers. The public context in which this
injury arises differs significantly: not only has the underlying agreement not
been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for
creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at
liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create
havoc to bystanders."

~~~
shados
> the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative

It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real
antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to
make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base
it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if
tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having
an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either.

Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that
companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced
and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem.

Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.

~~~
spott
I mean the Microsoft Store charges 30% for games, Google play is 30%, Steam is
30%, I'm sure there are app stores I'm not thinking of that charge 30%.

It seems to be the industry standard App Store cut.

~~~
naikrovek
But the Microsoft Store isn't THE ONLY WAY to get games installed on Windows,
and that's what's different.

It isn't the 30%! It's that there's only a single way into iOS. It's a literal
monopoly, and they are large enough that this matters, now.

~~~
romanoderoma
As of march 2019

> The updated ADA includes the new Microsoft Store fee structure that delivers
> up to 95 percent of the revenue back to consumer app developers. To ensure
> you receive the full 95 percent revenue, be sure to instrument your
> referring traffic URLs with a CID.

------
causality0
A victory for sanity. Apple threatening developmental licenses and anyone who
used the Unreal Engine was nothing short of mafia-esque, and just as obviously
Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit
against apple.

~~~
a2tech
Isn't this still an Epic issue? Basically if Epic delivered their engine to
their customers as source code and NOT as a compiled binary couldn't the
customers build the engine and include it in their App Store submission? But
since Epic is trying to deliver the compiled engine to their customer (signed
with their dev keys) thats where the problem comes in?

~~~
admax88q
How can epic develop the engine if they are banned form using Apple
development tools.

~~~
lewisgodowski
They aren't banned from using Apple's development tools.

~~~
saagarjha
They were going to be.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
No they weren't. You can download and use the developer tools without a
developer account.

~~~
saagarjha
You must agree to the developer program's EULA to use Apple's developer tools,
as well as sign your code.

~~~
dwaite
you must agree to the Xcode and Apple SDKs Agreement to use Xcode and
production SDKs, which is a click-through when starting Xcode.

You must agree to an Apple Developer Program License Agreement to sign and
distribute applications and to get access to pre-release SDKs.

~~~
saagarjha
Don't you need to be registered in the developer program to sign your code for
Apple's embedded platforms?

~~~
hundchenkatze
You do, but if I built a game using Unreal Engine then I'd be using my
developer account to sign my game.

~~~
saagarjha
Yeah, but as a developer of Unreal Engine itself I'd like to be able to test
it on iPhone…

~~~
hundchenkatze
Then create a free developer account. You only need to pay if you need to sign
for distribution.

------
IvanK_net
I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you
could run has to be approved by the manufacturer.

I think we should speak more about this fact, so that people think twice
before they buy some device.

I only make websites, but I am worried, that at some point, Apple would want
me to pay them, so that my website is openable on their devices.

~~~
Shivetya
Because it does not matter to the vast majority of people. In fact many
appreciate that there is a gate keeper.

There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what
the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be
impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with
warranty issues.

Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles?
Tesla is fighting this one now where people are paying a third party to boost
their horsepower.

Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that
locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities

Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are
compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? Do you want a
world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?

I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy, because a
manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for
forcing them to do so.

~~~
neogodless
I am thankful every time I drive that I'm able to run software of my choice in
my automobile. Mazda never seemed to get around to adding Android Auto to my
2015, and yet I use it whenever I feel like, and I didn't have to pay a dealer
$300 to install software!

~~~
jhloa2
Yeah, people flash their ECMs all the time. I don't really see how using 3rd
party software to boost power in a Tesla is all that different. Just don't
cover any damage caused by the tinkering under warranty. Tesla just seems
salty that they're missing out on their "DLC" profits.

------
dgellow
Could someone explain what was Apple trying to do? I really don't get their
position in this story. It seemed obvious that trying to completely block
Epic's Unreal Engine would be causing more legal issues. What is their
strategy here? It feels that they actually wanted things to escalate, though I
cannot see why they would do this.

~~~
cwhiz
Apple threatened to revoke Epic’s “Apple Developer” account due to repeated
violations of the developer policy and agreement.

I am sure Apple did it to try and bully Epic into settling.

~~~
kayodelycaon
Both Apple and Google will pull people’s developer accounts for this kind of
misbehavior. Epic isn’t special in this regard.

~~~
Dahoon
Except the developer Apple wanted to ban was Epic and their Unreal engine.
That is an entirely different legal entity and developer than Fortnite the
game developers on the app store. It also says so in the ruling. So what Apply
did was punish X for what Y did. They might as well have banned Microsoft for
siding with Epic.

------
dbetteridge
[https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine-
ap...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine-apple-
restrained/)

Non techcrunch link (as I can't access those with ublock/cookie wall blocker)

~~~
ergwwrt
always use [http://cachedview.nl/](http://cachedview.nl/) to see blocked sites

~~~
1f60c
How have I never heard of this site before? Thanks!!

------
pjmlp
Epic is just the new gang in town establishing themselves while trying to get
some shops under their control, by playing being against the long time block
owners.

~~~
swebs
This. Actions speak louder than words and Epic's anti-Linux actions with their
store are extremely telling that their rhetoric about supporting open
platforms is purely self-serving.

~~~
cma
Valve has had a lot more Linux support, but it seems like they just want Steam
to be "Google Play Services" for desktop Linux. GPL software can't even
communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the open source community and
ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be part of Steam's extensive
gaming social network, into serfs for the store.

~~~
xyzzy_plugh
Huh? In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services
on Android?

Steam on Linux is mostly compatibility hacks so people can play the games they
bought. Some games have decent Linux support, but the real value I see in
Steam on Linux is all the proton/wine magic/hacks to make games work
relatively well without any changes, and frankly it's great.

The rate at which Wine/Proton et al., and Linux gaming in general, has
improved in the last few years is staggering.

> GPL software can't even communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the
> open source community and ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be
> part of Steam's extensive gaming social network, into serfs for the store.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has to
do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam which
uses all of Valve's features.

~~~
cma
> In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services on
> Android?

Steamworks.

> I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has
> to do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam
> which uses all of Valve's features.

Steamworks is needed for that and isn't GPL compatible. You can sell GPL
software on Steam, but can't use many features and are isolated from most
social/friend stuff.

[https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributin...](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributing_opensource)

> Which Open Source licenses are compatible with the Steamworks SDK? In
> general, permissive licenses that do not put any requirements on you to
> redistribute your modifications under an open source license work fine.

~~~
xyzzy_plugh
This is borderline FUD. You don't need to use Steamworks to publish a Steam
game. With respect to games, most commercial licenses also have these same
restrictions, e.g. Unreal Engine.

This seems fine, GPL is probably not suitable here. I don't think Valve is
going out of their way to harm anyone's freedoms.

If you really want to release your game as GPL, then do the usual workarounds:
use a shim which RPC's to the proprietary bit.

~~~
cma
> If you really want to release your game as GPL, then do the usual
> workarounds: use a shim which RPC's to the proprietary bit.

Sounds like the non-solution to GPL software on Apple's App Store, which
restricts GPL (or has in the past): run it on a remote server.

------
hellisothers
I find a lot of the comments here split down “I want app regulation because I
feel it provides a layer of safety and safety is good for the consumer” vs “I
want more freedom and choice because choice is good and is better for the
consumer”. Which brings to mind two things

This sounds similar to the current brouhaha happening in the US over America’s
inclination towards personal freedom at all cost even when govt regulation
could/should step in the make things better.

A concern that once “freedom of choice of App Store” is provided, where does
it stop because ultimately those demanding choice will keep demanding aspects
be “open up” “for fairness” until iOS isn’t special anymore. Part of what
makes it special _is_ it’s regulation, if you don’t want that then “choose”
elsewhere. This aspect feels like the problem in the US of big business
battling for deregulation which... isn’t always so great.

I’m not saying “Apple is doing it for the people!”, necessarily but Apple is
doing it to be Apple, let’s not make everything the same.

~~~
devwastaken
There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized. If apple had
been reasonable we wouldn't be having this discussion. Apple has shown it can
no longer reasonably regulate its own market and will not be the Shepard.
Their significant efforts of verticle integration from hardware to software
shows their inclination to creating walled garden markets that compete at the
economy of scale and are designed to eliminate competition.

No company is allowed to control a market of other companies without
oversight. Given that oversight from apple is corrupted it must be provided in
other means.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized.

Literally not what monopolized means.

~~~
damnyou
Duopolized. The rest of the argument still holds, and a weaker form of it
holds for Google as well, since stores like F-Droid can't do everything that
Google Play can.

Please steelman the arguments you disagree with.

------
jamesdhutton
Can anyone explain exactly how Apple "blocks" Unreal Engine? I was under the
impression that it's a 3rd-party library, available directly from Epic, that
anybody is free to link their game to. So I'm struggling to understand the
mechanism by which Apple blocks it. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.

~~~
daveoc64
Epic needs access to Apple's developer tools and documentation to continue
developing the Unreal Engine software and libraries for macOS and iOS.

Without access to those things, it would be difficult for Epic to produce new
versions of the Unreal Engine, and game developers wouldn't want to use it any
more.

~~~
dep_b
Yes but any developer can have his or her own account that gives access to
every tool, only for pushing software to the store it's vital to have that one
particular account for Epic. Epic will lose perks like direct access to
performance tuning teams at Apple, but that's not something you can't do
without.

So "difficult" would mean that you need to improvise a bit, but they're still
able to develop just like any developer. If you want to put your own cocoapod
out, you don't need a developer license to do so and if someone else wants to
use your cocoapod they just need their own developer account.

~~~
mantap
Legally Epic would lose access to all Apple developer IP including iOS SDKs
and Xcode. You have to click through an EULA to access this stuff. And you can
bet that Apple would have sought a court order to enforce it, had they
prevailed.

~~~
mlindner
Just a note, this isn't past tense. The court case is only beginning. This was
only about the initial injunction. The court just told Apple and Epic "cool
it, stop fighting each other in public and harming your customers, fight each
other in court".

------
dang
Related discussion of the court ruling:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176).

------
GeekyBear
Epic seems to be asserting that access to Apple's developer tools requires a
developer account.

Since XCode is freely downloadable by anyone, does anybody know which tools
they are talking about?

~~~
Mtinie
Code signing requires an Apple Developer account. Without being about to sign
a package you can't publish to the App Store.

You can develop apps for iOS and OS X, and then publish to (a) test device(s)
from XCode without one, but that's about it.

~~~
GeekyBear
If I write an app that includes the Facebook SDK, that doesn't mean that
Facebook is involved with submitting my app.

As long as my developer account is valid, Facebook's account doesn't enter the
equation when I am submitting an app that includes their SDK in any way I can
see.

Can someone shed more light on this?

~~~
Mtinie
I'm likely looking at this from a narrow case but how does the Facebook SDK
scenario related to the question you asked?

Did I misinterpret your original statement to mean how would the closure of
_Epic 's_ Apple Developer account impact others (with their own valid Apple
Developer accounts) from using their engine within an app they published to
the App store?

I understood your question to be "why do I (an app developer) need an Apple
Developer account?" A second reading and your response leads me to believe
otherwise.

~~~
GeekyBear
>how would the closure of Epic's Apple Developer account impact others (with
their own valid Apple Developer accounts) from using their engine within an
app they published to the App store

Correct. My understanding of the situation is that developers who include
third party code in their app do not involve the author of that third party
code when submitting their own app.

I used the Facebook SDK as a frequently seen example of third party code that
is included within iOS apps as they are submitted to the App Store.

------
zaroth
It would be nice if everyone could start by agreeing that that there's
actually a nuanced discussion to be had about how "anti-competitive" a company
can be, and also how that answer might change based on the size and
profitability of the company under discussion. If your position is that your
opinion is absolutely correct and there's no room for discussion, why post at
all? It's just ideological battle.

With that said, I am naturally inclined to believe that businesses should have
a lot of control over the products they create. My baseline is that I want to
be as unencumbered as possible in my product vision and the experience I offer
my users, and I'd like minimal government restrictions on my desired UX unless
consumers' physical health or safety is on the line.

I see the choice of how third parties should be able to create and sell code
that runs on a platform I have created as sacrosanct, from the drawing board,
up to the day the first unit is shipped, the developer gets to decide. As my
code is my own written word, it is akin to my First Amendment right to free
speech. However, I'm willing to accept that somewhere along the journey from
that very first prototype, to the 1,000,000,000th unit shipped, the equation
shifts.

Most products, that is to say non-open source software, by their very nature,
are non-trivially anti-competitive in some way. It is the same thing to say
that the product is _differentiated_. I have a BA in Economics, but I'm a long
time out of school, so I may be clobbering this definition, but "a product is
differentiated in the marketplace to the extend that a product has a feature
or benefit or functionality that is not equivalently provided by every other
substitute in that market." In order for a product to remain differentiated,
it therefore _must_ be non-trivially "anti-competitive". Maybe it makes sense
to dive into the definition of that word more deeply, but I don't want to
waste your time. My point is simply that "anti-competitive" is synonymous with
any market that is not perfectly commoditized. Hopefully it's uncontroversial
to claim that "anti-competitive" is _not_ fundamentally bad per se.

It's well recognized that anti-competitive behavior which at one scale is
fundamental to a diverse marketplace of products and services which drives
innovation, value, and consumer choice, at another scale is used to lock-out
potential new market entrants, and enable excessive profitability or rent-
seeking behavior. The words "monopoly" and "duopoly" usefully describes the
ultimate/penultimate theoretical states of such a market, but they don't
adequately describe that various ways we can approach such a limit in the real
world. Apple is not a monopoly, but that does not mean that there should not
perhaps be elevated limits on acceptable anti-competitive behavior on their
part based on the specific facts of their market position.

I think it is also self-evident that it is an extraordinary remedy to
judicially limit anti-competitive behavior targeted at a specific company in a
competitive market. Indeed when we enjoin a company from making their products
function in ways that are quite central to that product's highly
differentiated user experience, yes it may grant choice to some customers of
that product to operate it in new ways, it is also taking choice _away_ from
customers who may have chosen the product for exactly the functionality being
target. This to me is an extremely heavy handed remedy, and should only be
deployed against a company if it is absolutely warranted based on _unlawful
conduct_ by that company.

While the case before the judge today was simply a preliminary hearing on a
injunction, and therefore not by any means a ruling on the fundamental issue,
we can see this balancing act being employed in the current case. The contract
that Epic willingly entered into with Apple and willingly violated is placed
in one corner (blocking Fortnite) while the separate contract(s) of developers
using Epic's Unreal Engine is placed in another corner. All we know today is
that this judge was not willing to allow Apple to retaliate against the
violating of one contract by withdrawing from the others, and that the judge
was not willing to stop Apple from terminating the first contract after it was
willfully violated by Epic. The larger discussion will likely take years to
play out.

~~~
Ajedi32
I think part of the reason why this case is so polarizing is that it ties in
to unrelated issues like right-to-repair and consumer freedom.

As things stand, the owner of an iOS device doesn't have the final say on what
software runs on their device; they can only install apps that Apple allows
them to. There are some who would consider that to be wrong regardless of
Apple's size or place in the overall market, even though that's not really
what this case is about.

------
627467
If Apple wanted (and they probably are doing it) they could heavily delay the
approval of any apps that make use of an engine they seem "risky"...
Effectively increasing the costs of those developers using "rogue" engines.

~~~
7tsfmCAusrQ
Of course the "risk" is primarily to Apple's own business interests -
competition with Apple's own apps and services.

------
syspec
Is the fact that epic has its own store on desktop, where they also take a
cut, and also do not allow games to bypass their payment system relevant if
this goes to trial?

It seems a bit hypocritical even if the percent is lower

~~~
redxdev
I'm not sure if Epic requires you to use their payment processor for IAPs, but
even if they do it's not hypocritical in the slightest. The Epic Store isn't
the only realistic way to sell a game/app/whatever on PC. That's the issue
here - not that the store takes a cut, but that if you don't like the cut you
have absolutely no way to try and go with an alternative.

If I don't like the cut Epic takes in their store I can go with Steam. Or
gog.com. Or itch.io. Or sell things myself on my own website. If I don't like
the cut Apple takes in their store on iOS I can go with... nothing.

------
yupyup54133
I'm confused. Why doesn't Apple just use their "Termination for Convenience"
clause that lets them terminate any contract with a 30 day notice?

~~~
Gorbzel
B/c in that case Apple would be doing what the haters erroneously claim they
do now: making 100% arbitrary/capricious decisions when it comes to the App
Store walled garden.

As those of us who target iOS know, they're not transparent, but it's not
arbitrary. Thank god. We'd never hear the end of unsolicited opinions about
the Touch Bar and HN's annual subscription to the year of desktop Linux.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
> but it's not arbitrary

Then why does Amazon get a special deal?

~~~
dkonofalski
They don't. All subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year so Apple is
just counting the existing time where they were figuring out the process. That
still applies to everyone, not just Amazon.

------
floatingatoll
Dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176)

------
UhDev
I'd hate apple a lot less if I didn't have to target their shitty browser on
any projects.

------
jiveturkey
unfortunate, IMHO. Epic violated the terms, willfully. Apple should be able to
evict them. Epic can bring a suit while adhering to the terms ...

------
rolph
i wonder if fortnite could be wrapped into an unreal SDK so there is some
example code and tutorial materials.

to wit fortnite code becomes part of the engine

------
jaimex2
Shame, blocking the Unreal engine would have hurt Apple a lot more than Epic
though lets face it the real losers would have been developers.

~~~
spott
How do you figure? Apple's customers usually have gaming as a pretty low
priority for purchasing of Apple products.

The PR hit?

------
shmerl
They also should be blasted for forbidding competing browsers all this time.

------
amelius
Will this pave the way for Firefox using the Gecko engine instead of Webkit in
its iOS browser?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS)

~~~
madeofpalk
no, not in any way.

------
onetimemanytime
Just wow: _Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform
for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform.
While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is
anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent
alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free._

Plus the more or less: why is this an emergency when you decided yourself when
to violate the agreement?

------
Bender_Donaghy
Change My Mind - I currently agree with Apple's strategy with blocking Unreal
Engine. Why is it that a big company (like Epic) thinks it's no longer subject
to the Apple Tax while us small guys thrive with the platform for which we
wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple. Are we all subject to the
same cycle if we "make it", we'll buck against the 30% cut and bite the hand
that fed us. This is bad business, it's going to create a stronger reaction by
Apple that will only hurt the smaller guys. Plus is Epic doing anything to
help us smaller developers in the mean time besides wasting money in a court
system? Are they creating a fund for us help bridge us to a different system
if their appeal fails? So please let me know your opinion, and if I'm wrong,
please let me know why.

~~~
wvenable
> We wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple

Is that worth 30% till the end of time? Your argument is like crabs in a
bucket -- one crab tries to get a better deal and you pull him down because
you have to pay.

Lets say, somehow, Epic manages to get that fee lowered to something more
reasonable for everyone. Would you not be happy with that?

~~~
parasubvert
This is the crux of the matter: is it anticompetitive to setup an ecosystem
where you always get a cut?

Generally, historically, no, this is not anticompetitive, especially given
there is another ecosystem with far more market share (but maybe not
profitability because more people spend money on iOS apps). Inserting yourself
to take a cut for a service or a key component is good business practice, and
built the empires that every student in business school or in tech
entrepreneurship is taught to emulate. So long as the wealth pie grows, it
isn’t rent seeking to keep taking your cut.

What amazes me is that people think iOS and Apple (and even Android and
Google) are near-permanent fixtures that should be regulated as utilities,
rather than a temporary incumbent that will eventually be disrupted as the
world changes.

Microsoft’s reign of dictating terms to ISVs a lasted around 20 years. They’re
still incredibly profitable and still take a cut of almost every PC sale (or
XBox game / movie / tv show sale). They don’t have the clout they used to
because the tech changed.

At some point, new things will come, such as AR/VR, and we may see companies
such as Valve and Oculus/Facebook become the new tech ecosystem dictators. The
winner takes all dynamics of platforms seem to make this inevitable. Why
enshrine Apple and Google as utilities now, when they’ll be less relevant in
10 years?

~~~
wvenable
What's more scary is not that a single company or group of companies will be a
permanent fixture but rather that this _model of computing_ will be permanent!

If you would have told me 20 years ago that the creator of an operating system
would take a 30% cut of every piece of software sold, I would have thought you
crazy. If you would have told me Apple or Microsoft would dictate to me what
software I could run, I would have considered that a massive invasion of
freedom. But today this model is considered totally normal and encouraged.

We aren't seeing other companies competing with this model on price or freedom
-- we see companies wanting to enforce their own control and get their own 30%
cut. Microsoft has tried it. Google is doing it. Oculus does it. Apple will
certainly bring it MacOS.

As software developers and users, is that really what we want?

~~~
parasubvert
As software users, we definitely have voted with our wallets to say that
properly executed vertical integration (As Apple has done), and the end to end
UX control that comes with it, are highly desirable. The iPhone is arguably
(and surprisingly) the most successful non-food/drug product line in human
history by unit sales, revenue, or profits. The 30% cut and ecosystem control
are likely a feature, not a bug. The user experience and security of the
horizontally open market PC was pretty bad until Microsoft was forced to
invest.

As ISVs, clearly there are major downsides to this state of affairs. But I’m
not sure I wish for the days where Microsoft reigned and would just put you
out of business on a whim.

I don’t think Microsoft’s antitrust consent decree had as much of an impact as
some think, it was more about entrepreneurship and new tech (largely the
iPhone! But also Amazon, Facebook, and Google) that reduced their clout.

I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS; you can’t put genies
back into bottles.

~~~
wvenable
> The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug.

The only feature I can see for this is making Apple a multi-trillion dollar
company. Apple is profiting massively off of our labor and yes, we have been
so far happy to give that to them, but perhaps _now_ is the time to revisit
that relationship.

With Apple abusing their control to deny access to cloud gaming maybe this
success is a Faustian deal.

> I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS

I think it will be a function of going to Apple silicon.

