Of course they are, that's Apple's standard business relationship practice. See also why Mac's still don't have an Nvidia GPU option, because Apple & Nvidia got in some spat a decade ago and Apple has been holding a grudge ever since.
The more Apple brings stuff in-house the less this matters to the bottom line, but it shouldn't be surprising. Unless not having Fortnite begins to seriously impact iPhone & iPad sales, Apple isn't going to care regardless of whether or not it's hurting their customers.
Since then Apple has repeatedly had inadequate cooling and power delivery issues, just typically resulting in throttling instead of recalls. Sooo Nvidia was probably accurate and it was Apple's fault. But regardless of whose fault it was, the end result is consumers were stuck with some truly second-tier GPUs for many years
it was so reliable it failed 100% times :)
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/10/nvidia-settle...
Also NVidia has issues with their driver development and refuse to let Apple have a say in it.
Hmm, I don't think this is accurate. As per their filing with the SEC, NVIDIA pledged $150 million to cover damages.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119312508...
I for one love passive cooling. I select my (no Apple hardware in my house) hardware for silent operation where possible. Started with selecting the right fans and sound proofing my desktop PCs back when and now I'm only buying laptops that do well with the cooling noise. Meaning, if all I do is browsing HN, you better not turn on any fans on me. And when a fan is turned on, it has to be silent and have the right "sound profile". There's just some noise that's very very irritating and the decibels are just one aspect of it.
So if someone does everything they can to do without active cooling, I support that. Now if they can't, put the right kind of fan in there, sure. E.g. on a GPU I'm fine with some cooling noise, but it better only happen when I'm likely not to notice because I'm loudly slaying aliens or something like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EY7KW-PVy8
This is also the case with the M1 iMac, the lower model only has a single fan and throttles on long running tasks as well.
Apple is constantly having bad designs and failing to take care of customers until they are forced to via lawsuits.
Sad for all the customers along the way that suffered through all the failed attempts.
It affected a bunch of manufacturers.
I am not surprised Apple hates their guts, too.
e.g. AMD's GPUs have full documentation, and high quality open source drivers. Same deal with Intel.
NVIDIA, you have to deal with their blob, and tough luck if it doesn't work, especially if NVIDIA has decided not to support your hardware anymore. They do that fairly quickly. In that sense, their GPUs are comparable with PowerVR, and your average shitty android SoC.
They've been hiring risc-v specialists recently. I wonder why.
Source: me. Was working at Adobe at the time, probably at the thing that actually led to the demise of Flash (not that it was my intention in any way to contribute to the death of Flash, the decision to kill it was a surprise to me as much as it was to anybody else).
Flash cost Adobe a lot to develop (it was a big team). At some point, I speculate[+] that Adobe simply decided they no longer need the runtime, since the browsers have/will soon have all the capabilities that they need, natively. So why waste the money?
[+] I don't know for sure (e.g. I didn't participate directly in the decision); but still, I believe my speculation is much more informed that the typical net user who just noticed the coincidence and wanted to believe the narrative.
I think that ignores a very very significant reason for the browsers getting to that point of being able to supplant Flash being that is was terrible and security nightmare and Apple had shifted mindshare against it and shown it wasn't needed in a mainstream platform. It wasn't just Adobe graciously terminating a successful platform that gave them a lot of influence.
Prior to and subsequent to Flash (a Macromedia product, fwiw) Apple & Adobe have had extensive relationships and interaction that are in no way indicative of spite.
The main reason Flash died is because performance & power consumption on mobile never got past garbage, despite the platform wars going borderline nuclear on the topic.
> they made valid excuses sure,
Perhaps it's my becoming an ol' fogey, but it's crazy to see the Apple haters of yesteryear also move toward historical revisionism.
While the best approach is to just ignore such FUD like "valid excuses, sure", it's also important the record not be owned by zealots and those who preach spite.
https://bgr.com/tech/steve-jobs-iphone-adobe-flash-testing/
yes adobe and apple have histories tied together, but it wasn't always a rosie partnership.
What this comes down to is an argument over money, and what percentage apple should get of that money. I don't think either company has a moral high ground in their negotiations on what percentage apple deserves.
Apple is just being a bully.
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platforms, such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law."
And most important, apps should have no restrictions whatsover to have payments inside their own app ecosystem!
That said, I like the app store rules they can enforce like IAP - I just don't think they should be taking a cut. If they want to charge a flat one time fee of like $100 to publish then fine, but profit sharing seems wrong to me.
My worry is their aggressiveness in defending their tax will cause blow back that damages their ability to leverage their rules. A worse outcome is one where they keep the tax, but app devs are allowed around the rules. This is starting to happen (an admittedly tiny bit) by them being forced to allow links out to sign up off of the phone.
If they just forced people to use IAP for their user's benefit (easy cancellation, easy account subscription tracking and privacy, easy payment), but didn't take a cut that would be the best outcome for their users and it'd be an easier argument to win in the public eye.
That includes potentially changing their developer agreement to now require developers to meter and perhaps even audit external payments to submit Apple's commission.
Because they can no longer differentiate payments made independent of the app (because the anti-steering clauses are gone) this could result in required commission to apple in cases which it formerly was not required.
The brick and mortar store says "we agree to stock your product, and will take 30% off the top for our troubles."
Would we be saying the same things? It's the same dynamic, in my view.
In your example, it's like if you bought a TV from Walmart, took it home, and then any content you wanted to buy on that TV had to have a 30% fee paid to walmart since....that's where you bought it originally? It doesn't make sense there, and it doesn't make sense here. When epic sells you a fortnite skin within fortnite, apple provides literally no value to this transaction, other than being a gatekeeper between two legitimate sides wishing to engage in a business transaction - so that's why Epic wanted to make sure they can process their own payments within the app(and the court has agreed).
I can't help but notice that Fortnite is also available in the PS4 store as well.
This is simply Epic doing their own money grab against the the platform they can most afford to alienate:
>The documents show that from March 2018 to July 2020, the
>breakdown of Fortnite revenue by platform was as follows:
>PS4: 46.8%
>Xbox One: 27.5%
>Android, Switch, PC: 18.7%
>iOS: 7%
If nothing else, Epic managed to lower in-app commissions for small indie devs, which is a small win at least.
What about it? It's the same kind of anticompetitive practice. Except that Apple devices are used by billions every day across whole software market and consoles are entertainment devices used with much narrower market impact. Punishing them is less urgent.
Would Walmart be interested in that? Seems like their retail cut would be sliced to $0 in that situation despite doing the retail work.
But sadly, you bought your home in a neighborhood with an HOA, and even though you own your home, the HOA requires all retail purchases have to go through them, and they take a 30% cut of everything and they won't let you order that TV directly from the manufacturer to put in your house.
But this is ok, because this is what you agreed to when you bought your home.
Epic already runs a store they don't need the app store to distribute their apps and do payments. They're only required because Apple gives them no other option.
Also, the majority of people do not own their houses, banks do. Try financing a house and then stop servicing your loan. That’s essentially what Epic has done: breached contract.
Epic’s “store” is an app, and evidently they do need Apple to distribute it to Apple devices, unless you can tell me how to install it right now on my device?
> unless you can tell me how to install it right now on my device?
This is the dictionary definition of begging the question. You can't install apps on the iPhone because you can't install apps on the iPhone -- that's not an argument.
Software distribution and installation, historically, not required an "app store". That's a relatively new invention.
Is that ok? It would seem that people entered the contract together without duress?
Are there other neighborhoods? Run by other HOAs with better terms? Isn't it a market contest at that point to see which one buyers will prefer?
But the majority of other neighborhoods are also run by HOAs with similar terms. There are a few neighborhoods that are completely free of HOAs that but those houses are not as nice and neighborhoods not as nice. If you want a nice house in a nice neighborhood, an HOA is your only option.
I'm positive some people, if they had the option, would prefer to buy their current house free of the HOA. Others, on the other hand, like that HOA protects their neighborhood and don't care that they can't paint their house a different color or buy TV's directly from manufacturers.
Sadly, the house and neighborhood you want determines whether or not you'll have to enter into that contract with a particular HOA.
I think the HOA tries to argue that this isn't coincidence - its the HOA's policies and governance that have resulted in the niceness (we can cite examples that both support this and contradict this, of course, so its hard to assess whether this is true).
Folks might argue that it isn't fair that the most desirable goods are encumbered, but then its kind of up to them to create or support institutions that can manufacture the unencumbered version. That's the promise of a market opportunity where we can create brand new neighborhoods to test your hypothesis that people will prefer the nice-but-no-HOA version (I think the recent buzz around the Framework laptops is an example of this).
With iPhones I think we have a choice, and while it isn't ideal, we can vote with our wallets and support other institutions or companies.
In this case, the TV manufacturer already has all that infrastructure and they use it in neighborhoods without an HOA. It would be no cost to you or the HOA for you use it but the HOA just doesn't allow it. For obvious reasons, of course, because then they wouldn't get their cut.
If iOS only running Apple’s signed code is so bad why do people keep buying iOS devices?
This was widely misreported as true, but is in fact not what the judge ruled. If you read the full ruling rather than just the single page injuction, it seems that the only thing that Apple is being forced to allow is in-app communication about / linking to places outside the App where purchases can be made.
In fact, the Judge goes so far as to say that Apple can still legally use their contracts with developers to require Apps to pay commission on out of app purchases. This case was a far bigger win for Apple than was initially reported.
To fix this, we need new legislation. The courts seem clear so far that they can't reign in this behavior using the existing laws on the books.
Incorrect.
The ruling said that Apple cannot have anti-steering provisions that prevent developers from advertising alternative payments on content outside the app (web pages, emails).
- Apple is still allowed to forbid in-app purchasing through alternative systems
- Apple still has the option to require commission on purchases made externally in the future. Currently they do not, but they were previously able to draw a clear line using anti-steering provisions.
Apple has used other techniques like minimal usability to pressure apps to support in-app payments - e.g. Hey.com was rejected because their app was unusable on download because they did not support in-app subscriptions and anti-steering meant they did not refer people to instructions on how to sign up. Presumably anti-steering solves this - right up until Apple changes their rules to say that the external payment needs to result in a commission payment.
There are only two chains of brick and mortar store in the world and one with double digit market share (Apple) has decided to take 30% off the top for all goods sold in all of their stores and have banned products from having any indication on their packaging that they can be purchased elsewhere for different pricing. Entering any store also requires an extremely expensive chain-specific device that most people purchase on credit every few years, eliminating the ability to easily shop around at both chains.
If this were to happen outside of tech, the perpetrator would get crushed by anti-monopoly legislation.
The only real restriction Apple currently has is that apps should do no such advertising of alternative platforms (payment methods).
All arguments about the fairness of this are moot because see Netflix, which happily complies with these rules and avoids Apple’s 30% cut. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a...
Prior to the recent ruling, this was untrue (unless I'm mistaken).
Yes, yes I do think we would be saying the same things.
edit: I wouldn't even say "two chains" like a sibling comment suggests because the reality is that customers have to invest hundreds of dollars on an exclusive membership to one or the other, picking and choosing from both is not an option.
A lot of things have been litigated in this dispute, this is not one of them. What this comes down to is questions about control over iPhones and contents of apps, questions the court was asked to answer were things along the lines of:
- Whether Apple can restrict iPhones to only installing software received via Apple.
- Whether Apple can control how software installed through their platform collects in app payments.
- Whether Apple can control how software installed through their platform informs users about not-in-app ways to pay.
...
Not "what cut is appropriate". That wasn't the legal or moral point.
It's not about sticking it to them. It's to increase the cost of their appeals and pressure them to drop the case.
Trying to get him interested in writing a bit of code, which to me is more fun in some ways than playing games, without pushing it too hard, and so far no luck.
Back in the day, Warcraft III had a built-in script and level editor and people thrived on making mods and entire new types of games with it (murder mysteries, tower defense, battle royale, DOTA...). It's how I got my start as a coder, modding games that I enjoyed without the boring pressure of "business logic".
I think Fortnite itself has a creative mode with limited logical programming: https://www.firetechcamp.com/course/build-an-escape-room-in-...
Proper modding support is supposed to arrive soon: https://www.pcgamer.com/fortnite-creative-mod-support/
The former are good for any creative kid (or adult!) and don't require you to learn a programming language, just logical thinking (as in logic gates/flows). The latter, depending on tooling, can require everything from simple Lua scripts (a common game modding language) all the way up to learning UnrealEngine or Unity.
Games with built-in content editors:
* Warcraft & Starcraft series (oldies but goodies)
* Fortnite
* Minecraft
* Neverwinter Nights series
* Divinity: Original Sin series
* Age of Empires series
Code-moddable games: Too many to list, see here: https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Moddable/#p=0&tab=Top...
In particular I'd check out Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights' DM mode, and the DOS editor for a good sampling of what the industry can offer. They are a great stepping stone to actual programming, with triggers, conditionals, and other flow control structures all wrapped behind a veneer of fantasy gaming.
(edit: sorry for potato formatting. no idea how HN handles text formatting)
Originally a tower defense game (you build structures and traps to defend your base against invading alien zombies), some Epic & Unreal Tournament developers decided to fork it into a PvP (competitive player-vs-player) battle royale game instead, loosely based off Player Unknown's Battlegrounds.
It became a surprise hit, propelling Fortnite from "niche DIY tower defense game" to global pop-culture phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite_Battle_Royale#Develop...
(edit: this was reposted... old comment was in the wrong thread)
Aren’t developers also their customers?
Post-NeXT (or at least post-iPod) Apple has always been about total control of user experience, not letting users do all of <whatever category of activity> that they want.
I don't think that vengeance is necessary to explain this.
Are they businesses or school children?
They benefit the users who want to play those games. Fortnite in particular is huge.
I'm not sure the risk was worth it... especially since they didn't need to take that risk to file the lawsuit.
From the first moments, Epic has been running a PR campaign, which doesn't really help you in court.
As an adult who's partner plays and plays occasionally, Its honestly really about group chatting (voice comms) with friends/relatives as much as it is about the game for us. I mean the game is silly and fun, but really its a group thing. I almost never play when not with friends.
And occasionally there are group events/ a concerts and movie screenings.
We're all on PCs/ Consoles, but if your a kid a free to play game your friends are on you could join in with a tablet, would be nice.
"(2) a declaration that (i) Apple's termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games' wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games' control at any time and at Apple's sole discretion."
It's a loss for cross-platform gaming altogether. Apple just really doesn't give a damn about their users =/
There are kids that are in elementary school that wear Fortnite clothing. The brand is everywhere. I am sure some actuary did the math on it so that Apple will come ahead, but the optics on something like this will sway brand loyalty for years in this demographic.
They do not, this clear by the way they handle the ecosystem. See a customer buys something from a company, after which they own it
Apple on the other hand does not have customers, they can not because they do not sell anything, dont be fooled by the high prices, and verbiage that indicates you are "buying" something, marketing that in a sane and just society would be considered illegal as deceptive
No no, you simply rent the device from apple for a period of time determined by apple, and are given permission to use the device in ways only the owner (Apple) approves.
I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been waning over the years after having invested heavily in the ecosystem. This is another representation to me of how Apple's ecosystem is something you have no control over, and you are at the whim of Apple's legal team in situations like that to be able to play the games you want to play on your devices.
Apple remembered their corporate games they were playing and forgot who their real customer and focus should be: the end users. This decision doesn't benefit their end users in any meaningful way. It hurts end users to score points in their feud with Epic.