| HN Mirror

IPhone is a general computing platform so that argument doesn't hold water.

Why is it more of a "general computing platform" than an Xbox or a Playstation or a Bravia?

All of those platforms have stores, all of them allow digital downloads of software that executes, all of those have browsers.

What makes the iPhone "general purpose" where the others are not?

Probably the fact that no one made a fuss over consoles. I'd argue the same rules should start applying for them as well.

But there was nothing stopping Microsoft from releasing halo onto the playstation.

There is nothing stopping anyone from developing a game for these consoles.

And there is nothing stopping Epic from releasing Fortnite on the iPhone (in-fact it was there for years).

The rules could be unfair[1] but this issue is just Epic not wanting to follow the rules to make some more money.

[1] We can discuss what a fair price/percentage should be. Arguably the market and Apple customers have decided 30% is fair, but we can discuss. Meanwhile, side-loading or not charging would make my iPhone experience worse.

Well the unfair part is what is being discussed. So ignoring that would be ignoring the whole point of this.

My conversation with you was entirely about "the iPhone being a general purpose computer".

It seems we have both settled that either an iPhone is not general purpose, or all consoles, TVs or IOT devices with downloadable content are general purpose devices.

If you'd like we can now start discussing if the price Apple charges is fair.

I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even appreciating) that the user cannot side-load non-Apple approved apps (other than through a less trusted channel i.e. the browser). As such the market through demand, has decided there is a niche ecosystem where 30% fees for in app purchases are appropriate and fair.

What are your thoughts?

grumple 2140 days ago

> Epic doesn't need to pursue Apple iPhone customers

Apple does not get to decide how the market operates. Only government gets to do that. Your statement makes it clear that they are committing anti-competitive practices.

Your statement seems inaccurate.

Doesn't the Sony Playstation, or Microsoft's Xbox get to control how they operate?

Don't movie theaters get to decide which movies are shown/not?

Don't service providers like a nail salon or grocery store get to deny service? Other than for "protected categories" like sex, race, religion. e.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no service".

When these behaviors are being used to stifle competition they should be stopped too.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "stifle"?

Fortnite is a clear example of a success story of competition on the iOS platform. Epic has been making tons of money (billions in profit) for years thanks for Fortnite and in some part to iOS and the AppStore.

This current battle between Epic and Apple is about profit sharing and that's all. Have you seen the number of successful games on the iOS platform? Competition is thriving! But I do agree both companies are greedy.