Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/28/apple-terminates-epic-games-developer-account/ <comment><USER3> All: these Epic vs. Apple threads, and $BigCo vs. $BigCo threads in general, have unfortunately been seeing more name-calling, accusations of manipulation, flamebait/unsubstantive posts, and other things that break the HN guidelines. If you comment, can you please avoid that? Reviewing [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) would help.

The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. Remember that every post you make has a non-negligible impact on the community. If we all treat this place like the discussion forum we'd like to have, eventually we'll have it.

<comment><USER3> This is a stub comment to collect the replies so we can collapse them, to prevent offtopicness. Sorry, no-JS users.

<comment><USER4> I'm surprised this kind of topic inspires such discourse. I wonder what makes it different than other topics.

<comment><USER5> It touches on multiple axes of discussion that can often be found here:

\- The rights of the individual/company compared to the good of the public.

\- The right of an individual to control that which they bought. Also, whether and what you buy compared to license the use of.

\- Anti-competitive behavior and monopolies (as distinct concepts, whether one applies doesn't preclude a different answer for the other).

\- Very large companies and the amount of control they have over individuals and their rights.

These are all vibrant topics of discussion on HN, and this includes, and in some cases epitomizes, aspects of all of those and more.

<comment><USER6> I think these all also touch on deeper aspects of our personal stories and the emotions we feel about them. See the post about a non-white person viewing it as a battle between an oppressed party and a party upset at being viewed as an oppressed party.

Although people like to believe they think rationally, especially here; the truth is, none of us is capable of doing so all the time. We all bring things to the table. And I think each of the things you mention touches all of us pretty deeply, as it has to do with all of our individual standings in society and our freedom to live our lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My feeling is that this whole situation is mostly going as Tim Sweeney intended. He was itching for a fight, wanted to sue Apple. The harsher that Apple retaliates, the better Epic's court case. Apple is playing right into his hands.

Did Sweeney anticipate Apple's threat to Unreal Engine? Maybe, maybe not. But the temporary restraining order did block that threat, at least for now.

I don't think Epic ever intended to release the new Fortnite season on Apple platforms.

This is a long play, not a short play. In the short term, Epic loses money by not having Fortnite on Apple devices. But in the long term, it's much better for Epic to break Apple's App Store monopoly.

<comment><USER8> I can't see how Epic wins this.

If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic?

Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments.

You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in games or gaming sales, they can just point at steam.

If somehow the American courts arrive at that judgement, and I am a non- lawyer, I put my hands up, but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents?

Edit: The more I think about it the more absurd this is. It's as if some random brand of Mayo is suing Wallmart for not stocking their brand on their shelves.

There is absolutely no way they can win this, unless American courts are going to start allowing "mom & pop" random ketchup brand to force Wallmart to stock it on their shelves. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones, it doesn't have a monopoly on games, it's got a store front you can buy stuff from, and if you don't want to play by their rules, then bye-bye. Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple?

<comment><USER7> The iPhone is not a store. The App Store is a store. Epic wants to be on the iPhone, but not necessarily in the App Store. Ideally, Epic wants to run its own store on the iPhone.

In any case, App Store is the only store in town, where the "town" is the 1.5 billion iOS users. If there's only 1 store, with no competing stores, that's an entirely different situation legally.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I bought a $1000 device, but somehow Apple gets to decide what I run on it? I just cannot see how that is a desireable situation.

<comment><USER10> I bought a $1000 device because Apple gets to decide what can run on it. I like iOS, and I like that Apple provides a great user experience on the device.

I was not in any way coerced into buying said device, and there are a plethora of other options for substitute devices had I wanted more control of what runs on the device, which I do not.

<comment><USER11> What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation?

Would you accept a house that only allowed furniture, food, books, electronics, devices from the company that built the house? Do you think it should be legal for a company to make a house with those conditions?

Would accept a car that could only take gas, tires, oil, electricity from the company that built the car? Should it be legal to offer such a vehicle?

You used to be able to buy a VCR and choose only to rent videos from Blockbuster video if you wanted "safe and clean". That didn't require any company making the VCR to force people to only to go their "safe and clean store". Apple doesn't need to force everyone on iOS to go to their store for you personally to continue to only get apps from their store.

<comment><USER12> > What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation?

I have a Playstation that only allows me to play games that comply with DRM, unless I root the Playstation (if that's even possible). I have a coffee machine, that only accepts cups from a specific manufacturer, because they own the patent. I own a car that only allows me to run maps supplied by the manufacturer and the updates are expensive.

I knew all of this when I bought this stuff. Complaining about the app store when you buy an iPhone is like complaining about the airplanes after you bought a house near an airport.

<comment><USER13> I think there's a line that needs to be drawn between 'general purpose computing device' and 'content consumption device'

One of these is OK to be all locked down and centered around a monopolistic content store. The other one really isn't.

Smartphones and tablets have been trying to move from one category to the other, and this is where the problem lies.

<comment><USER14> Also, consoles are sold at a loss. Would be happier with Apple if they too sell at a loss.

Another point - Kindles are also content consumption (and sold at a loss or were) but they still allow me to load any book that I have.

<comment><USER15> > Also, consoles are sold at a loss.

Which means they're to cheap. Customers need accurate price information or they will buy things that were more expensive to produce than they're worth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves, yet I also think that the comments here overstate how "aware" average people are about Apple's restrictions, tax etc.

I don't think most people would consider direct payment to reputable companies like Epic to be a particular security risk. I don't think most realize why they can't subscribe to Spotify from their iPhones, they think it's simply not implemented.

The thing is, Apple now holds a tremendous amount of power over a large set of the population. All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere.

I'd be more OK with this if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout. But the fact that they prevent apps from showing it and actively try to conceal it shows that they know most of their customers would ask questions about it, at the very least, likely question if the "benefits" they get in return are worth it.

<comment><USER17> "if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout"

Do you know any store that adds a line showing their margin on the customer receipt ?

<comment><USER18> I've seen gas stations list two prices, one if you pay with cash and one if with credit. It's not quite what you asked for, but it's an example of passing optional margin related to the choice of payment on to the customer.

(Incidentally credit card companies, like Apple, really hate it; I think some states have exceptions in their laws to disallow contracting out of it?)

<comment><USER19> It's common here in the Netherlands for shops to charge extra for MasterCard/Visa card processing, and they advertise this at the till. Maestro is king in this country.

Buying airline tickets online often display the processing fee for using MasterCard/Visa too.

The important part is other options are displayed so I have a choice - iDeal, PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, bank transfer, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not sure why people are surprised or consider it giant news.

> The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store's guidelines and > policies while the case is in progress – the rules they followed over the > past ten years until they created the current situation themselves. Epic > refused.

Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want. No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.

The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.

<comment><USER21> people familiar with Tim Sweeny's life and ideology know that it is an actual important issues to him that platforms be open.

your cynical take is often very true but there are sometimes real human ideals behind things.

<comment><USER22> Tim Sweeney may be a wonderful man who loves open platforms, apple pie, and kittens, but:

\- Android is clearly more open than iOS, but Epic is also suing Google. So is this really about sideloading? From that suit, it sure doesn't sound like it.

\- When you _do_ sideload Fortnite on your Android device, from what I understand, you can't actually sideload Fortnite _directly._ Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games Store!

It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force _both_ Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store. And while I'm not much of a gamer, the stories I recall about Epic's store in the press... well, we'll just say they didn't have a "so ideals! much open!" vibe to them.

I think there's a lot of valid criticisms to be made about both the "app console" model that Apple is steadfastly pushing and the specific ways in which they're running the App Store, but I am skeptical that Epic is the general this particular battle needs.

<comment><USER23> The reality of the legal system is that all small companies would just get worn out and forced to settle against Apple, regardless of the justice of their complaint.

No company smaller than Epic could afford to file such a case. I wonder whether any company could become large enough without having some way for people to argue that "it is not the general this particular battle needs".

<comment><USER22> Sure, Epic's size is absolutely going to be helpful here. But there are other larger companies that could probably make _better_ cases against Apple if they chose to: Amazon and Microsoft come to mind immediately, with Facebook a possibility given the events of just the last couple of days.

I'm not saying Epic is a bad poster child for this case because Epic is a sleazy company (although from all accounts they kind of are); I'm saying they're a bad poster child because their battle is running up a steeper grade.

Are they arguing that Apple's policies make it impossible for them to split money with authors at the same rate on ebooks? No. How about the policies making it impossible for them to give 100% of event ticket sales to their users _and_ impossible for them to even tell users they'll make less money when people buy tickets on iOS? Nope. Maybe they make it impossible for them to put a client for a streaming game service, period, full-stop, even if Apple got a cut of the money? Negatory.

What _does_ Apple's policies make it impossible for Epic to do, then? Get a higher cut of the revenue from Fortnite's game currency when it's bought on iOS. That's what got their developer account terminated. This is the stand they're taking, the flag they have planted, the hill they are ready to die on: that 70% gross profit on zero marginal cost virtual tchotchkes isn't enough.[1]

Maybe this case will be successful, but my suspicion is that if Apple changes their position, it's going to be either due to regulatory pressure or the ever-increasing weight of the rolling PR disaster they're getting themselves into.

[1] Edited to add: As I wrote, I think it's ultimately about them wanting Apple to be forced to allow the Epic Games Store to be installed on iOS through the Apple App Store, but the case they're bringing is still about Fortnite.

<comment><USER24> I agree with most of your points. The one question I'd like to return, however, in response to your 70% question is this: does apple deserve 30% of all developer income? That seems steep. I think the 70 % argument is a bit of a red herring. If you think that virtually cost free products should cost less, that's a different argument. But once the price is set, why should get apple nearly a third of it? If anything, lower cuts could result in lower overall prices.

<comment><USER25> 30% sounds steep, I agree. But it's also industry standard. See: Google Play Store, Microsoft Store, Steam, Samsung Galaxy Store, Amazon App Store, etc.

<comment><USER26> Doesn't that sound like a market failure? What kind of market supports such a consistent gross margin?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.

Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.

<comment><USER28> Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.

Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.

Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.

Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.

How Tinder hasn't been sued to oblivion I'm still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don't employ differential pricing based on race yet.

<comment><USER29> If you're claiming that Spotify would get all the benefit of a break in the fee, you're implicitly claiming that it bears all the economic burden of the fee (ie. it doesn't pass on the fee to users). Spotify currently charges $13 to sign up in iOS and $10 to sign up on the web. This is strong evidence that Spotify is currently passing through the fee to users. It seems much more likely that Spotify would give iOS users a price break if the fee was cut. Music streaming is a competitive market, so they don't have much choice if everyone gets the same break.

<comment><USER30> Especially when Apple Music is $10 per month, Spotify needs to more or less match that price. The problem is if Apple takes 30% and Spotify pays out 70% (old info, maybe this has changed) to labels, Spotify is left with $0. It drops to 15% after the first year, but that's still not good compared to the 3% major credit card processors charge.

<comment><USER31> Just for reference: the EU has capped credit and debit card transaction fees at 0.2 and 0.3% and both are still profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Of all the things about this, the fact that the Fortnite competitor PUBG is now being "featured" by Apple just ticks me off so much. Talk about being petty. Are there school-aged children running the App Store now (or the executive suite?).

I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but _come on_. Being featured is _important_ , it's a _big deal_ and it can make a serious difference to any developer's income and notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the top of the list because they're in a bad mood really says something about Apple: I don't know, maybe that they're a bit isolated and immature about this whole thing?

<comment><USER33> The irony here is that PUBG is made with the Unreal Engine, which they're being _forced by a judge_ not to cut off from their platform, and Epic still gets 5% of all revenue from PUBG.

<comment><USER34> They're not being forced to do anything, it's a temporary injunction, i.e. just a remedy.

What's noteworthy here is that it's not a preliminary injunction, meaning that Apple might not even have had the chance to defend themselves in court yet.

<comment><USER35> > They're not being forced to do anything,

It's literally a court order forcing them to not do things that they said they were going to do

A new court order will be issued in the future, but for at least the next month this is the state of things.

> meaning that Apple might not even have had the chance to defend themselves > in court yet.

The hearing was literally livestreamed on zoom and (illegally I might add) on youtube.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day. Of course no one will do it but I simply hate everything about these apps forcing parents to pay small fees for stupid pixels because their kids begs them to do it.

Sorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money on tiny cellphone games.

My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.

<comment><USER37> > I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day.

What's the alternative? I'm in love with the micro transactions model because the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or high upfront fees.

On the games I play I rarely buy anything, don't see ads but their business is healthy and the games are fantastic and regularly updated with new content.

I casually play Asphalt 9, SimCity BuildIt and PUBG, probably have hundreds if not thousands of hours on each and spent probably less than $20 till now. If that's not a great deal, I don't know what is.

I also bought games like Monument Valley or Limbo and similar. While the experience is also top notch, the upfront payment feels steep and the developers don't update the games so the play time is considerably less.

<comment><USER34> > I rarely buy anything, don't see ads but their business is healthy

Where do you think the money comes from, then? Ultimately, your `fantastic' experience comes at the cost of innumerable singular sites of suffering from the children and addicts _who do_ buy them.

<comment><USER37> Good for them. There are controls for kids and if some people subsidize the rest, I don't have a problem with that.

Some people taking the tab for the rest isn't new. Some people have more money than sense, that's alright.

These games are high quality entertainment, if some people want to spend money on them, that's not a bad thing.

<comment><USER38> There are teams of people whose entire job is to make the IAP as addictive as possible. It's not fair to say that someone should just "be less addicted" to buying them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Apple is a monopoly. When Microsoft was investigated and fined for anti-trust behaviors, it hasn't engaged in this level of abuse.

<comment><USER40> Might be an unpopular opinion but I don't think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.

<comment><USER41> You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView).

I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.

<comment><USER40> Fair point but that's largely due to security not Apple's desire to lockout other browsers.

<comment><USER42> Justify "largely", please.

I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users".

Edit: grammar

<comment><USER43> I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple.

They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on- device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.

<comment><USER41> > _I don 't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security > more seriously than Apple._

True, but that doesn't negate other intentions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Super glad I cut all ties with Apple a few years back. They make great products for my parents, but they are increasingly hostile toward developers and tech savvy users.

I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store, and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And same with all of my future free software - it will never intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes their ways.

<comment><USER45> I'm also unsure how you can possess the skills to build an entire app and not also posses the skills to read the "annual fee" part of the developer program cost.

Not rooting for Apple, but the pretentiousness in the "I'm not a charity" part seemed far removed from the humbleness required to be unintentionally illiterate.

<comment><USER44> I was under the impression that the fee was only annual if you wanted to continue developing. I didn't know the fee was also tied to whether or not your existing apps would be taken down. Clearly, this is confusing to other people as well: [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5271418/will-my-app- stay...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5271418/will-my-app-stay-in-the- app-store-after-i-stopped-paying-developer-fee-to-apple)

<comment><USER46> This was not clear to me for years either until I looked it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> IANAL and I cannot judge the legal merits of this case.

I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices.

A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is _not_ allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%.

Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.

<comment><USER48> > Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by > increasing their product cost by 30%

What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?

<comment><USER47> Did they change this? They used to disallow charging more on iOS.

<comment><USER49> They have exceptions for few kind of products and this is exactly where Apple policy become some controversial. Since they also allow video streaming, but banned game streaming apps.

<comment><USER50> Do you have a source for this? Their guidelines don't really mention it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is a blunder. Epic will do just fine without Apple, but Apple is alienating people like me who use their products and are predisposed to support them. Our eyes are opening to their true nature. Full disclosure: I worked for Apple for almost 20 years.

<comment><USER41> I was an Apple fanboy until the 2011 MBP fiasco.

My top of the line MBP died aprox 2 years after I bought it. By that time there were thousands of people with the same problem on the internet. Obviously I had to buy another Mac to keep on working.

If Apple had cared about its customers it would have taken the defective machines early on and either exchanged them for new machines, or at least offered a proportion of its retail price towards a new Mac. Apple didn't do nothing of the sorts.

It took almost 2 more years and 3-4 action class lawsuits for Apple to finally start a repair program.

By that time I could't even sell the damn thing after the repairs. I ended up giving it away to a junior dev and guess what? It died a year later of the same problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm surprised there's no effort by companies to negotiate collectively with Apple, as one entity. A single company means nothing to Apple, the company often risks a big chunk of their revenues, Apple risks basically nothing.

Surely there are things that such app developer organisation could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first, exclusive deals, etc.

<comment><USER53> Paradoxically, if a group of small businesses being harmed by a monopoly get together to do something about it, they can themselves run afoul if antitrust regulation.

<comment><USER54> Well, let's elect those who'd fix bad laws then

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'm guessing Epic wants the court to break down Apple's monopoly on app sales on iPhones, potentially by requiring them to allow third party app sales via alternative marketplaces, then swoop in with their Epic Games iOS marketplace and capture a big chunk of Apple's in-app purchase lunch. Considering the sheer size of Apple's revenue from gaming despite not being a game development company[1], I'm guessing that Epic has weighed up the expectency of proceeding with this legal battle and decided its worth the risk.

I mean if this is their plan and they pull it off then hats off to them. As a consumer I welcome healthy competition.

[1]: [https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/19/apple-is- fourth-l...](https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/19/apple-is-fourth- largest-gaming-company-globally-thanks-to-the-iphone)

</comment><comment><USER56> Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions?

It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.

<comment><USER57> I don't need apps on my iPhone to do 100% of all things that apps can do. I am fine with some restrictions, so long as there's enough reliability, consistency, privacy and security.

If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores:

1\. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection restrictions. 2\. Epic will want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app purchases. 3\. Google will want a store that allows them to track your location in the background regardless of your consent. 4\. The New York Times will want a store where you cannot find a way to cancel your subscription.

And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and end up with a poor user experience.

And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for me.

I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.

<comment><USER58> But Android exists, and has multiple noteworthy alternative app stores (including, relevant here, the Epic Games App) and this has not come to pass; every mass-market app is on the Google Play Store, excepting now Fortnite.

Epic previously tried to build out a Fortnite playerbase on Android outside of the Play Store and was unsuccessful in drawing in players, so they had to upload it to the Play Store (which has now been removed).

<comment> just-ok I would argue that this is because there's far less to gain on Android vs. iOS in terms of data collection and privacy by leaving the Play Store. It's pretty apparent just by perusing the two SDKs how much less information you can gain about devices through Apple's APIs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I did something today that I never imagined I'd do in 10 years as an exclusive Apple user: I installed Windows 10 on my iMac so I could continue playing fortnite. I'm sure Mac had one of the smallest shares of users, but I was surprised by how much more performant the game was running on Windows compared to MacOS. The difference was incredibly noticeable. It's weird to me that Apple is risking losing users to other platforms, but I guess the 30% is worth it to them.

Between this and the fact that Apple tried to kill Unreal Engine from its platform, I'd be really nervous to be a game dev trying to rely on Apple at this moment. Regardless of the outcome of the Epic suit, Apple hasn't really acted like they take gaming seriously on Mac or iOS, as several big iOS games would've suffered a similar fate to fortnite if a judge hadn't stepped in.

</comment><comment><USER60> One thing I've seen Apple do more and more in recent times is the concept of introducing something for the good of the user with sometimes little regard to the impact shouldered by developers or businesses.

Sometimes they're smaller impacts - like the ability to only enable GPS when an App is actively being used. Other times they are larger - like the the changes to the Advertising and Device IDs.

I've read here that the loss of the singular, centralized and controlled store could potentially be an issue for things like malware, privacy, and some of the other causes Apple has come out to fight for on behalf of the user. Perhaps Apple forgot to consider its own behavior as a threat to those ideals? Could Apple have avoided all of this if they applied the principles they used in other cases to themselves?

If the store had a 12% rate would Epic have bothered to do this? Other decisions can come into play too, like no ability for upgrade pricing and how subscrption costs are handled. If we really look, the list could get long.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if Apple truly cares about the things that could be lost if the App ecosystem is altered, then perhaps it needs to take the same hit it has doled out to others in the name of that cause?

</comment><comment><USER61> As an app developer, I'm moving to straight web apps. All the hoops, the review system,and ranking prejudice makes it an easy decision even outside of the 30% rake.

<comment><USER43> Good luck with that. Users hate mobile web apps.

App Store has been around over a decade and the number of popular mobile web apps (that didn't also release an app) is basically zero.

<comment><USER61> Profits have been stagnant on iOS and Android for some time. Too much churn and competition. For $10.99 a month the webapp is growing 10% a month with much less CPA and less churn and no 30% cut.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> IMO, Apple is acting like a bully. It's using its position of power to coerce other into giving up a substantial amount of revenue for very little effort.

If they want to keep this monopoly, they should make their cost transparent and apply a reasonable markup. Otherwise they should be forced to allow competing stores. Anything else is ripe for abuse, as we can plainly see now.

<comment><USER63> And how much "effort" is it in selling virtual goods with zero marginal costs?

<comment><USER62> I am not following. Are you saying apps development is free? That the only cost is delivering the bytes?

<comment><USER63> I'm saying that selling costumes and Carlton dances at zero marginal cost and loot boxes is not the hill to die on. If every game that had micro transactions for consumables disappeared tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost.

<comment><USER64> Those cartoons dances pay for all other costs of epic has. Are you upset that the cinema tickets costs more than renting a chair for 2 hours?

<comment><USER63> You know there is the idea of selling software for a one time cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Most of the comments defending apple, are people thinking that epic games does not want pay the 30% cut... but the problem is not that.. the problem is that apple demands that the price must be equal on all points of sale. ( Epic should be able to increase their price in 30% on apple plataform only, to cover apple fee )

<comment><USER66> They can do that.

They're just not allowed to mention that the price is cheaper on their website or other platforms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I am a developer and I really can't understand the arguments against Apple.

And I have many apps on iOS store, and sure I would love to pay a less cut.

But Apple's pricing policy was the same way before they had 50% share of phones. Sure a monopoly must be regulated, but it doesn't mean that if a company has >50% share you can dictate how they should price their product.

Monopolies should be regulated so they don't increase prices or take advantage of their position. And if the policy is 10 years old this is obviously has nothing to do with bad practices of monopoly.

<comment><USER68> if a policy is 10 years old it's because policy, law, and govt hasn't caught up

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> The one thing I don't understand about Apple's stance: why don't they let a device owner sideload things SAFELY on their own device? Something like the Apple Developer Account, but for free, and I get a certificate that works on a single device - my own - ONLY.

I still need to understand software development, and probably to own a Mac just to sign things and to upload them to my phone. They could even provide something like a web interface to perform the signing and/or notarization, so people cannot invent magical desktop software to make signing easier for random users.

This would effectively defeat the "walled garden" objection, but make things hard enough that 99.99% of iphone users wouldn't bother.

With the notarization system (is it applied to ios apps as well, I suppose, not just to Mac apps?) they could even prevent piracy.

<comment><USER70> If I were Epic then, I'd make a button in the Epic Games Launcher which does this for the user.

<comment><USER69> You would still need a Mac, then to register with Apple as a developer, then connect the iphone with a cable. For each update, you need to reupload manually. And for each game - you could not upload a store app - you would need to repeat the whole procedure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Maybe if the U.S. government broke up microsoft when they had the chance back in 2001 then we wouldnt even be having this conversation. Apple would clearly, unambiguously be in violation of anti-trust laws, and that would be a win for the people.

But the courts have set a precedent with microsoft which makes it very hard to destroy these vertically integrated monopolies moving forward. Destroying monopolies is needed to protect the people's liberty and property.

<comment><USER72> That particular piece of history sure doesn't help.

But Apple excluding all of Epic's products from their store (the technical reasons aren't that important, the effective result is), while only a single product is actually violating their (already questionable) rules, sounds to me like a heck of a glaring antitrust issue either way.

The real issue here is not so much that Apple is doing all kinds of illegal (antitrust) things (and so do Epic, Microsoft, Facebook and many more). It's that the USA has essentially become a defunct banana republic a long time ago. That particular Microsoft charade, including their subsequent violations and blatant disregards, played a significant part in the whole shift to where we are now. However, for some reason it appears that most Americans still want to hold on to an image of reality that already belongs to the past.

I'm not saying it's better in other places, or even comparing it with any other place. Still, the USA not enforcing its own antitrust rules sounds pretty bad to me. If these companies have become too powerful to effectively prosecute them for violations, then it is certainly on the government for having let those get to there in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Really interesting to study how macrumors.com loses all claims to objectivity when you read its wording with an editor's mindset:

> Shortly after Epic blatantly disregarded App Store policies

You don't need the adverb "blatantly" here.

You can just say "Epic disregarded App Store policies" and be able to claim to some reasonable objectivity. But as soon as you throw in "blatantly", you have clearly revealed yourself as a biased news source.

<comment><USER74> tim sweeney sent an email to tim cook and other apple execs telling them in advance that he was going to violate the contract and that he would fight them for years if necessary. so, no, it's not biased to call it blatant, they were extremely blatant about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Is there any other example in the industry where you can not install and use an application without approval of the operating system creator and maintainer?

<comment><USER76> Every game console.

<comment><USER75> Gaming consoles are not general-purpose computers they are specialized for gaming but good point.

I was looking for example of general-purpose computer being locked down by OS creator.

<comment><USER77> > Gaming consoles are not general-purpose computers they are specialized for > gaming

One could say that mobile devices are not general-purpose computers, they are specialized for casual content creation and consumption.

<comment><USER75> Google Play has over 30 categories for applications: [https://support.google.com/googleplay/android- developer/answ...](https://support.google.com/googleplay/android- developer/answer/113475?hl=en)

Appstore has over 20 categories for applications: [https://developer.apple.com/app- store/categories/](https://developer.apple.com/app-store/categories/)

Categories range from Books, Medical, Business, Finance, Music, Photo & Video, Health & Fitness, Entertainment, Shopping, Productivity to Games. And the list goes on and on.

What are gaming consoles used for? Gaming. Maybe you can create apps to do something else but it wasn't meant to be general purpose.

<comment><USER77> Does the number of app categories matter? They're all apps, meant for casual content creation and consumption. Consoles have a number of game categories too.

> What are gaming consoles used for? Gaming.

PS3 has been used for multi core computing until Sony blocked it. Source: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster)

> it wasn't meant to be general purpose

I'm sure Apple would say the same about the iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Epic had a golden goose here that printed money for them.

Now they are shooting the goose because they want a bigger share of the egg.

The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet. Instead of riding the wave they are getting off of it.

Can people sell the goods that they buy from Epic? What will happen to these goods ten year from now?

<comment><USER79> People said exactly this when Epic picked (and won) a fight with Sony over crossplay on PS4.

<comment><USER78> to be honest with you, I'll be happy if either one of them wins. One of the unusual cases when I think both outcomes would bring about positive change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> One unexamined side effect of this is that Epic is no longer able to security patch Fortnite. A sufficiently bad exploit would have really interesting tradeoffs for both parties. If Apple is standing on security being the core of their offering, they'd undercut it by not letting Epic patch it. But if Apple didn't let them patch it would Epic be forced to come to terms?

<comment><USER81> If Apple wants to make their own users hostages that's their choice and Epic shouldn't bend to it. Apple has totally shattered the illusion that their walled garden model is about Security and not Control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Apple may win, but they aren't winning me over as a developer. All this tells me is that I don't want to develop on their platform lest they change some rules under my feet.

</comment><comment><USER83> Maybe Epic will have some breakthroughs in making Fortnite browser based.

Not sure what would be needed to accomplish this.

Maybe better WebGL?

That would be amazing to help kids discover that the internet is much larger than apps.

<comment><USER84> This doesn't completely work because of all the missing features that Apple's iOS Safari does not implement. And you cannot even get a different browser (engine), because of Apple's App Store rules.

Off the top of my head, iOS Safari doesn't support notifications or (at least on iPhone) fullscreen API. Surprisingly there is controller support

[https://caniuse.com/#feat=fullscreen](https://caniuse.com/#feat=fullscreen)

<comment><USER83> So this couldn't be done in a different browser to the best of your knowledge?

<comment><USER84> It could be done in a different browser that supports these features, of course. But on iOS, there is no other browser, and Apple prevent any other browser from being put onto the App Store. Chrome and Firefox on iOS is just a skin around iOS Safari with bookmark syncing features. They have no ability to implement these features on iOS.

<comment><USER83> You sure? There seem to be a few others such as Dolphin, iCab etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> 1\. Let's think about what's in the users best interest wrt app capabilities. Wouldn't it be better for users to not be hit by a 30% surcharge when signing up for Spotify thru the iOS app? Wouldn't it be better for users patronizing small businesses if all of the revenue for events booked through that Facebook app went to the small businesses?

2\. Let's figure out if it's possible for Apple to still offer a secure experience for apps installed via sideloading (which is one option; the other option is allowing other payment methods in the App Store for in-app purchases). It should be thanks to their sandbox. They're welcome to tighten the sandbox further too over time, e.g. how they relatively recently restricted background location access, since that was rightly considered more sensitive than foreground access.

Apple can easily offer more user benefits without fundamentally making their business model unsustainable. Note that the situation here is fundamentally different from brick-and-mortar stores, which have very limited shelf space; not to mention no single brick-and-mortar store controls so much of someone's life (we're very reliant on our smartphones).

<comment><USER86> OK no brick and mortar comparison. How is it different than the PS4, Xbox and Switch. They take 30% on digital and brick-and-mortar store sales.

<comment><USER87> Why is it assumed that these other platforms charging 30% is reasonable?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Regardless of where you stand on this brouhaha, it's still a cautionary tale about what can go wrong when you develop for a walled garden platform where your access to developer tools can be revoked on a whim.

<comment><USER89> Whim? What whim?

Epic poked a bear with a stick. A stick they deliberately sharpened for poking.

No idea why they thought they would walk away from that unharmed. Enormous hubris or a complete lack of understanding of politics? Probably both.

Nothing Epic did is the sort of thing a potential employer of mine would accidentally do. There _are_ cautionary tales to be sure. This isn't one of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Epic should make a Fortnite inspired Android phone and put their own store on it. Gamers buying such phones (even if the price of the phone was subsidized) would be later spending $$ on in-game purchases. Even if anything positive comes out of the Apple-Epic collision, in the long term, having their own platform would reap benefits for Epic.

</comment><comment><USER91> In the end this is really a competition question and whether or not Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behaviour.

I remember the days when Apple was pushing to break up Microsoft for including free software (Internet Explorer) in Windows operating systems. It's amazing how "principles" change depending on whom they are being applied to.

</comment><comment><USER92> Maybe a naive question but why doesn't Apple take 30% commission on my Robinhood trades. And how is that exchange of money for stock, digital currency different from apps like Fortnite

<comment><USER93> I don't use Robinhood but I doubt you're funding your account through the app? Shouldn't it be a bank transfer/CC through their website?

<comment><USER94> You can directly fund you account in the app, no website needed.

I think the real answer here is that Apple considers a stock a physical good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Remember this whenever you hear someone say their company is too big to fail when dealing with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google and others: no company is too big to fail.

<comment><USER96> Isn't this provably not true?

When the government decides a business is too big to fail, it'll ensure that the company keeps running. Just look at 2008

<comment><USER95> I thought I wrote 'Apple, Google, Microsoft'. The government is a different class of entity altogether and the logical exception to that rule.

<comment><USER97> I don't think "too big to fail" is a phrase used outside the context of government bailouts. The public is acutely aware of the life and death of major companies and brands, see GE or Ford nostalgia.

<comment><USER95> I've heard it used on more than one occasion by large eco system players, just like in this case.

<comment><USER97> I'm sure you can find some exceptional abuse of vernacular out there, but the term was coined for something else and in this thread you are alone in using it this way...

<comment><USER95> But you understood it anyway, didn't you? And on the off chance that you would not I provided sufficient context making it plain that this was not intended in the original version but in a slightly modified version, which has been used often enough in my hearing that I got to notice it.

Those two cases stand out for me because they ended _exactly_ like the one on display here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> A neutral news source detailing the arguments from both sides would have been better fit for HN. This one reads like Apple press statement until, actual Apple press statement is featured.

</comment><comment><USER99> Network effects are a symptom of the internet. They yield incredibly strong market control. Very few economic actors run extreme profit margins at giant scale [0][1]. They extract a disproportional profit share from the market economy. Apple is just one of them.

Is this sustainable? Will these players stay happy just extracting profits and eating small innovative players for breakfast? Is the market economy strong enough not to succumb to their lobbying power?

To me, it's clear that as the general public, we don't benefit from this situation. In the best case scenario, we're overpaying for all things information. I think something should be done about this, but what? Suggestions welcome, because I don't have answers yet. In the meantime, I try to stay clear of the molochs.

[0] As a symptom, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon's combined market cap equals 75% of the entire EU stock market. Read their annual reports to understand where thet extract their profits.

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/the-us- tech...](https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/the-us-tech-sector- is-now-worth-more-than-the-entire-european-stock-market-bank-of-america- says/articleshow/77811931.cms) .

</comment><comment><USER100> I gotta say I really thought Epic would blink and comply. I guess I underestimated their resolve.

It's not like their lawsuit wouldn't continue if they put Fortnite back in the App Store.

<comment><USER101> It was very obvious that the response from Apple was quite expected so I don't understand why there would be any blinking going on.

<comment><USER100> Since fortnight stopped running on iOS, they lose all that revenue. I figured they'd hold up to the wire and then give up so they didn't lose that revenue. Seems I was wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have zero sympathy for Apple and how they manage iOS, but I do agree that banning Epic from the App Store is only logical.

OTOH I think it is outrageous that breaking the rules from the iOS App Store now bans you from even having an Apple dev account. Unless I'm mistaken, without an Apple dev account you can't even sign a macOS app (different from notarization).

I'm so glad I decided to not make any new projects for an Apple platform.

</comment><comment><USER102> What doesn't bend must break. App stores and other walled gardens seem imposing and dominating until they aren't.

Remember the original ideal of the HotJava browser, where fully sandboxed applications could be published online?

JS has come a long way in fulfilling that vision. PWAs are trustless and require no approval from appstores. Of course they aren't as efficient as native applications, but performance is improving.

</comment><comment><USER103> I believe the psychology behind making an e-payment comes in many forms. If you really want to listen to music ads-free on Spotify you will pay for Spotify even if it means going outside of the app. On the other hand if it is the type of payment that is more on-a-whim in nature, etc, then perhaps it's justifiable for the os (i.e. whereon the experience runs) to take a fair share.

As an iOS developer who started writing Obj-C 8 years ago and witnessed and felt first-handed the overall evolution of the language environment (which subsequently led to the birth of Swift and its continuation into what I considered to be the most interesting thing about Apple now), I think 30% is fair considering it has and would continue to contribute to (and in some sense incentivise) Apple's decision in allocating (what occured to me as) an amazing amount of resources in improving the iOS (and Swift) developer experience.

Great languages (and great developer experiences) don't come cheap. And I won't be surprised if the top executives of a multi-billion video game company fails to realise that.

</comment><comment><USER104> My serious op-Ed in this is that these problems for Epic, Apple and those who side with the general idea that Apple needs to loosen some grip around payments and distribution of software are as follows:

\- If Apple has a blessed Paymenrs SDk, where you could use an alternative payment processor, thst would solve the percentage cut

\- if Apple allowed for being able to do true software update sales - <USER2> subscriptions or in app purchases but a way to sell through "versions" of software that would solve the last missing let of distribution

\- finally they could provide guidelines for acceptable ways to communicate pricing and alternative purchase points for a license. They already have a way for developers to generate codes that let you download an app from the App Store with said code, it's a matter of blessing this as a distribution target and not just for testing

I think these three things happen, all these issues go away, and Apple won't have to have a protracted fight in the courts and quite possibly come out the other side looking very bad.

I really believe this is the everyone wins scenario here

</comment><comment><USER105> Apple terminating Epic's dev account and Apple promoting PUBG Mobile for iOS users...doesn't that clearly show retaliatory intent?

</comment><comment><USER106> > On June 30, 2020, Epic emailed Apple requesting to offer a competing Epic > Games Store app through the App Store that would allow iOS device users to > install apps from Epic directly, rather than through the App Store and to > offer payment processing options within Epic's apps other than IAP.

> On July 10, Apple responded that "Apple has never allowed this . . . we > strongly believe these rules are vital to the health of the Apple platform > and carry enormous benefits for both consumers and developers."

> Around 2am on August 13, Mr. Sweeney of Epic wrote to Apple stating its > intent to breach Epic's agreements: "Epic will no longer adhere to Apple's > payment processing restrictions." Hours later, Epic activated a secretly > planted payment mechanism in Fortnite to slide a non-approved change into > the app that blatantly evaded App Review.

From the legal document: [https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/08/21/appleepic.pdf](https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/08/21/appleepic.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER107> If Epic wins and they create their own store then it would open flood gates for others. There can then be Google PlayStore, Microsoft Store, Steam, Adobe etc. The big players with their own store. This would substantially reduce interactions with App Store. iOS App store can become like Mac store. Not something which Apple would give up easily.

</comment><comment><USER108> I should be able to build a website and set up payments on it, then build an app which includes a subset of the features, not including payments. Apple should not be allowed to terminate me or compel me to support payments via the app. That is predatory and monopolistic behavior.

</comment><comment><USER109> Consumers and developers have very different interests. Locked down system is good for consumers, not so much for developers. Many comments here commingle the two. I happily pay Apple premium because the app store rules protect my data _from_ developers.

</comment><comment><USER110> I'm confused by this whole thing--the violation was cured by Apple removing the app, so why are they proceeding to delete the account? It seems that there is no clear justification other than retaliation for the bad PR/lawsuit.

</comment><comment><USER111> "This is not fair to all other developers on the App Store and is putting customers in the middle of their fight." Ah yes, like it was so fair that every other big company got special deals and "reader app" exceptions and so on. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER112> Epic Games and Facebook will start a cabal of companies who hate Apple soon.

</comment><comment><USER113> Could this be a half-proxy war between Google and Apple? If Apple has to allow other app stores, who is preventing those other stores from installing web browsers that are not Safari-based?

</comment><comment><USER114> In the end, in a normal world, the judge should decide what is good for the people and doesn't kill the company. A giant fine for monopolistic behaviour should be the only sensible outcome. But this is the US so the general "fuck the little guy" policy should apply. Epic games will be forced to pay apple 30% + extras for lost revenue. The account will not be restored and the customer shall be ordered to cheer the victory of their favorite brand.

</comment><comment><USER115> If I were Apple, I would have embraced and extended what Epic was trying to do. Apple has always struggled with its gaming image, and iOS games barely deserve the game. Why not find a way of partnering with Epic that creates a better deal for them and accelerates platform innovation? Everyone would've won. It kind of boggles me that we're here, but now that we are I'm hoping Epic wins just to see how the landscape shifts afterward.

</comment><comment><USER116> Sad to see how apple drones agree with this. It is fair for a hosting company to require a per download fee, but it has nothing to do with ingame purchases.

</comment><comment><USER117> The precedent that would set if the Apple/Google is forced to distribute alternative app stores via App Store/Play store. No downloading the apk and turning on installation from Unknown Sources to install it. This would also enable alternative stores on Xbox/PlayStation/Nintento etc. Steam inside Epic Games store and vice versa

</comment><comment><USER118> It's not rent because when a mall rents out space to apple they do it by sq ft. They don't charge them on a percent of revenue. Imagine every mall did that instead.

If its a credit card processing fee that should be 2-3%. With value added services maybe 10-15% but that would be the ceiling.

Apple charges these fees because they can.

</comment><comment><USER119> So whats going on here. Apple wasn't happy with one of the apps from Epic games (Fortnite), so pulled the other apps that were compliant?

Is that what happened. That leaves quite a bad taste in my mouth. Apple removed apps that were following the rules to try and enforce their rules on one that wasn't.

</comment><comment><USER120> > This is unfair to all other developers in the App Store and makes users > suffer from conflict.

Is this not a confession that paying Apple's cut makes competitor's less competitive? Possibly hints that this is a market, but not a free one? Seems like language you'd want to avoid when facing anti trust cases.

</comment><comment><USER121> What I find interesting is not so much this case but the globalization of the markets. With globalized markets you have near-monopolies which are so much more powerful than monopolies used to be.

So you want to sell an app? Well first you practically cannot install it "for security reasons" without being on either the Apple AppStore or the Android Play Store, which represent 99.9% of devices or so. (yes you can disable GPP, and side-load on android, or sign as a dev and side-load on Apple, neither of which make any practical sense if you're not a developer)

If you do not like their rules, you now need to make your own OS, Phone, distribute it and have your game on it. That's quite the step and why there are laws against monopolies.

The globalized monopolies use their leverage to exert pressure on governments, and it is very difficult to apply these laws without the company using a "globalized capitalism" as their own advantage, i.e. it will move everything it can to another country that will let it exploits it's customers and it's workforce (which is why all our stuff is made in China, India, etc. obviously, and tax HQ is generally in Ireland rather than USA and on so)

</comment><comment><USER122> Didn't a judge say they couldn't do that? What's transpired since?

</comment><comment><USER123> I will laugh if Apple will end up creating a game engine for their platforms...

</comment><comment><USER124> No Fortnight and no WeChat could be devastating to iPhone market share. Strange times, but it is nice using Samsung that has 2 official app Stores. Still love my iPad though.

</comment><comment><USER125> There is literally no downside to Apple allowing alternative app stores on their platforms.

They could even do it in such a way that they waive all responsibility should you choose to use one.

<comment><USER126> i want apple to do it but here are downsides from their perspective:

1\. they don't get 30% cut 2\. other app stores could have pirated content (like cydia) 3\. other app stores could have content with viruses

</comment></comment><comment><USER127> There's a coordinated ad campaign running for Samsung 5G + Fortnite. I wonder how much, if anything, Samsung paid Epic Games for the joint marketing.

</comment><comment><USER128> Always thought it a bit odd to see the creator of v-bucks moralising on the business models of others.

</comment><comment><USER129> looks like epic themselves charge x%

[https://twitter.com/darren25437616/status/129950347290827571...](https://twitter.com/darren25437616/status/1299503472908275712?s=21)

</comment><comment><USER130> "Apple in turn has taken to featuring Fortnite competitor PUBG in its App Store "

Gangsta.

</comment><comment><USER131> What's the problem anyway? There isn't a legal one as far as I know?

</comment><comment><USER132> Wasn't the decision they could remove Fortnite but had to keep the account?

</comment><comment><USER133> History is interesting here.

Capitalism, according to Wealth of Nations, has some problems with corporations becoming monopolies. When Teddy Roosevelt was sidelined into the Vice President position, it was partly to sideline the movement towards regulation and trust-busting. That period, due an assassination, broke up large companies.

We now have Apple, and a host of other players, using monopoly powers to extract value from any who would play. Epic may have done that math and found the tax was too high to be profitable, or that upsetting the monopoly was worthwhile. History may turn again, and monopolies may face more scrutiny.

The uncertainty of changes are one of the joys of a government system that is organized mob rule.

</comment><comment><USER134> Steve Jobs' response to the Epic situation: [https://youtu.be/rmlUAQamFSc](https://youtu.be/rmlUAQamFSc)

(Ignore the video's title)

</comment><comment><USER135> Epic violated the contract, Apple didn't. Apple's following up on the violation by terminating Epic's account, which is in the agreement.

</comment><comment><USER136> Epic brought this upon themselves.

</comment><comment><USER137> beginning of the end... next thing you'll be able to own your phone.

<comment><USER117> As per apple's terms, you own your phone i think. Just not the iOS

<comment><USER137> LOL... they would allow you to root it if you did...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> Apple had to not be anti-competitive. If ANYONE else did this they would have the same happen. Even if it was Apple in Epic Game Store. If Apple let Epic willingly break ToS and other small/medium developers would get the hammer, that would be seen as anti-competitive.

Let's be honest, this is what Tencent/Epic want and they want their own store. It was demand #2 on their initial emails to Apple from Tim Sweeney [1].

> _Because of restrictions imposed by Apple, Epic is unable to provide > consumers with certain features in our iOS apps. We would like to offer > consumers the following features:_

> _1) Competing payment processing options other than Apple payments, without > Apple's fees, in Fortnite and other Epic Games software distributed through > the iOS App Store;_

> _2) A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and > through direct installation that has equal access to underlying operating > system features for software installation and update as the iOS App Store > itself has, including the ability to install and update software as > seamlessly as the iOS App Store experience._

> _If Epic were allowed to provide these options to iOS device users, > consumers would have an opportunity to pay less for digital products and > developers would earn more from their sales. Epic is requesting that Apple > agree in principle to permit Epic to roll out these options for the benefit > of all iOS customers. We hope that Apple will also make these options > equally available to all iOS developers in order to make software sales and > distribution on the iOS platform as open and competitive as it is on > personal computers._

Apple's official statement [2]:

> _We are disappointed that we have had to terminate the Epic Games account on > the App Store. We have worked with the team at Epic Games for many years on > their launches and releases. The court recommended that Epic comply with the > App Store guidelines while their case moves forward, guidelines they've > followed for the past decade until they created this situation. Epic has > refused. Instead they repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate > the guidelines of the App Store. This is not fair to all other developers on > the App Store and is putting customers in the middle of their fight. We hope > that we can work together again in the future, but unfortunately that is not > possible today._

[1] [https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21807251/e...](https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21807251/epic_apple_emails.pdf)

[2] [https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/28/apple-has-now-terminated- epic...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/28/apple-has-now-terminated-epic-games- app-store-account/)

</comment><comment><USER139> Apple needs to allow third party stores and all this goes away.

</comment><comment><USER140> Now this is what the kids call an Epic gamer move!

</comment><comment><USER141> Epic was simply asking for it

</comment><comment><USER27> Commented this in the other thread on this subject, but think it's still relevant here.

Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.

Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.

</comment><comment><USER142> What in god's name is with all the bootlickers in this thread? I have no love for Apple or Epic. But if this lawsuit leads to better treatment of third- party developers on the platform and Apple not being able to arbitrarily control what apps consumers get to download, I don't see why Epic is being painted as the "bad guy" by so many people here. Apple has been behaving in crazy anti-competitive ways (just look at how they historically treated any developer that dared make an app that competed with their own) for years now. It's time for the hammer to fall.

<comment><USER143> Honestly, what is the difference between the App Store and Target? Why should a third party (or court) have any control in what the retailer sells?

<comment><USER144> Target might exist alongside several other competing retailers on the same block. The friction for a customer to leave and shop at a competing retailer is low. To extend this analogy, The Apple store exists in a company town, and the friction for a customer to leave 'Appletown' shop at competing retailers in 'AndroidLand' is intentionally as high as possible [1].

This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of control third parties should have over the App Store as retailer, it's an argument for why this current arrangement is exploitative, and not analogous to conventional retail platforms like Target.

[1] - [https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-how- an-a...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-how-an-amazon-ad- prompted-steve-jobs-and-phil-schiller-to-block-in-app-purchases-of-kindle- books-on-ios/)

<comment><USER63> iPhones exist right next Android phones in every carrier store. The only place you will see that exclusively sells iPhones are Apple stores.

<comment><USER144> That doesn't have much bearing on the cost of switching considering most of that friction is borne of investment into a particular platform and the intentional difficulty in migrating to another platform. This is the central caveat of walled gardens, the walls do not only serve to keep unwanted things outside, they also serve to keep you inside.

The analogy to a company town is apt. When you embarked for a town, both AndroidLand and Appletown were the same distance away, but now that you have settled down the prospect of migrating outside is considerably more difficult.

<comment><USER63> What high cost of switching? There are hardly any popular iOS only apps or popular apps that people paid for instead of buying a subscription that works cross platform.

As far as media that you _bought_ , music that you bought on iTunes has been DRM free for almost a decade.

Even with movies, you can blame the lock in on the studios that don't participate in "Movies Anywhere". Any movie from the participating studios that you buy on Prime Video, Google Play, Vudu, or iTunes is automatically considered purchased on the other platforms.

Most of the money being spent on the App Store are from in app consumables.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER145> Refuse to play by the rules, get banned.

<comment><USER146> Not all rules are legal. Apple can't demand your firstborn as collateral. They have enough market share in the US to be under scrutiny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER147> Holy bananas the astroturfing in this thread wow...

</comment><comment><USER148> The comments are terrifying. I know this isn't unique to apple but I will forever fail to understand how regular people to seemingly have so much of their self worth tied to a technology.

We're all just out here trying to find (secular) religion, apparently.

</comment><comment><USER149> Do you want Fortnite on your iPhone, here's how. Ask Epic for the source code (I am sure they will just give to you), build the app with xCode, and deploy it to your phone. And you are good to go.

</comment><comment><USER150> On one hand I really hope this breaks apart Apple and Google's duoploy in mobile, basically acting as the gatekeeper to all users around the world.

On the other hand, I don't feel good about the way Epic went about this. Makes it hard to support them because they were the ones who first started the war by deliberately breaking the terms of service. There's gotta be a better way.

<comment><USER151> Epic has a more clear case if Epic does what they want and Apple takes action against it than if Epic doesn't do what they want because they fear Apple will takr action against it. Now, the actions have taken place, there's no hypotheticals that courts dislike addressing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER129> ok, lets say we build a software distribution platform and fix a 15% commission to list any software..

Cut - 5 years later, after a billion dollar sales via that platform, and all of a sudden some developers see this 15% as a burden..

Now for an outside consumer, he doesn't care about the split, all he sees is value and return of his purchase..

For a indie developer, getting the much needed traction could be well worth the 15%..

now for a bigger shark this could be a problem and they propose a solution that the store shouldn't be the only one and they will setup a new shop (today for free, with discounted 15% for their products, but one day they when their own side platform grows, they WILL start charging)

as a consumer I side with Apple, as a developer am split, but no matter what , I won't Side with EPIC, because, they pay the same cut everywhere else ( XBOX,PS4 etc)..

If the counter argument is that apple is getting billions in profits, lets take a devlis advocate position and say apple grows negatively and billions become losses, now will EPIC agree for a 40% cut instead of 30%? NOPE, because that's not how. business works!

a contract is a contract!

</comment><comment><USER152> I hope Epic loses this. I do not want the App Store opened up in any way. One of the reasons I use iOS is so that I have very few worries about a device that I use every day.

To me, and I suspect to almost everyone else, iPhones are not computers. They are devices. Laptops are computers because they are for computing things. This is why I have moved away from MacOS as they have progressively made computing harder, but gravitated even further towards iOS.

If you want a totally open smartphone platform, great. That sounds wonderful for you. But don't use the law to take away the only secure smartphone platform I have available to me - go find your own open platform and play Fortnite to your heart's content.

<comment><USER153> I consider my iPhone to be a computer.

It's possible for some middle ground here. If there's an alternative distribution method, you wouldn't have to use it.

And it's of course possible that a lower commission is enforced.

Finally, the biggest issue here is Apple's extreme power in being able to completely destroy software companies. I don't think that's right, personally.

<comment><USER152> I want a platform that both I and my 72-year-old father can use without concern that he might be phished into downloading another App Store.

Billions of iPhone sales show that people clearly want the same.

If you want a top-end device with a widely used OS where you can install a thousand app stores, you can have one. Any one of a dozen major phone manufacturers will be happy to sell you an Android device.

You might consider your iPhone a computer, but I don't, and more to the point Apple doesn't - and you and I both knew that when we bought them.

<comment><USER154> > Billions of iPhone sales show that people clearly want the same.

It could as well be showing that they are only willing to _endure_ the same. The truth is - we cannot know, since an iPhone cannot be bought without the App Store and vice versa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER155> I do agree with Epic that the requirement for all IAP to go through Apple is absurd, and the 30% cut is too high. However, I fully support Apple in enforcing the App Store rule.

What else do you want Apple to do? Suppose Apple cave this time, what happens if tomorrow Facebook comes in and use private API to track users? Could Facebook argue Apple is using its monopolistic position to hurt its business? If you say, clearly forbidding tracking is good for the user and taking a cut is bad, who gets to draw the line? One can argue preventing tracking make ads less relevant to user therefore hurt them, and similarly forcing all purchase to go through Apple prevent unscrupulous developers from fleecing users. It's never a black and white issue.

Also, to be honest I always thought bigger developers have special negotiated rate with Apple. As an Apple customer & developer, I am very glad that everyone is treated equally in App Store.

</comment><comment><USER156> I have yet to find a compelling anti trust argument.

\- if anti-trust is about consumer protection (kind of a European perspective), there's no basis. You buy an Apple device knowing full well that the only apps allowed on that device are vetted by Apple. That's hardly new. The rules have not changed. Few exceptions have been made, and I bet those few have been framed by the best lawyers there are to avoid any possible contamination. So there's no new event or situation that has consumers losing.

\- if anti-trust is about protecting against market manipulation : no one forces any one to be on the App Store. The rules have not changed. Few exceptions etc. Apple does have sole control of the iPhone apps "market" but is that truly a market in the sense of competition law? The fact that it's called "App Store" should not obscure the fact that Apple could as well have decided to provide only their own Apple-branded apps, and develop themselves all of the apps they make available to iPhone users. Instead they chose to let third-parties provide apps under a restrictive set of conditions that include the "tax". Would it be any different if they actually licensed the apps from developers for a fee and resell them on the App Store to end users?

<comment><USER157> Regulations are for protecting the people and ensuring no monopoly takes place. Just because no laws exist now doesn't mean there shouldn't be. The choice the companies should have is either you follow those regulations or don't sell your product.

As far as I know in Apple ecosystem its very hard to have apps installed in your device if its not in the store. That is not how it should be. It's my phone my decision. It should be like it is on android.

Other countries apart from US should have extensive set of regulations to protect consumers and ensure no monopoly takes place. These regulations should be about what companies are allowed or not allowed to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER158> Good riddance. Epic is acting like spoiled brats.

<comment><USER159> Huh? I don't play any Epic games... But just because they refuse to pay a 30% fee?

Apple is only the distributor here. If they would charge a reasonable processing fee (4-5% like credit card companies do) nobody would have had - presumably - a problem.

Unlike with most (all?) other platforms there is no way to install apps from any alternate sources.

30% is the modern version of way-laying. (IMHO at least)

<comment><USER160> Yes, it is less like a commission and more like a sin tax for consumption or a non-deductible VAT.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER161> Supporting Epic in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform owners into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.

<comment><USER162> With no skin in the game, I could just as easily counter with:

Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.

Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps. Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.

<comment><USER161> It's a flawed argument, developers don't come saying "we'll give you 30% of our revenue if you let us build on your platform".

If they don't like the terms they can simply choose to not develop there.

<comment><USER163> This is like saying if you don't like how your government is run, just move somewhere else. So basically never push for improvements.

<comment><USER164> Yes, because buying an Android phone instead of an iPhone is like moving to another country.

As a consumer, you can push for improvements by voting with your wallet and flat out not buying Apple products. As a developer, you can push for improvements by not supporting that platform. Given that you have alternatives to Apple both as a developer and as a consumer, I don't think there's any justification for the government to force Apple to accept Epic blatantly breaking the terms they agreed to comply with.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Spreadsheet-like editable data table (JS) - <AUTHOR> https://datagridxl.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hello Hacker News Community,

DataGridXL is a Vanilla Javascript editable data table with spreadsheet-like controls.

There are many data grids/tables out there that offer editable controls in one way or another, but I found most (or actually: all) of them lacking in performance (both scroll and edit performance). Most of them were lacking in reliability as well.

I spent two years working on the product and finally v1 is done. The grid has a store and state concept similar to React, and it is fully virtual, which means that it can display a grid with 10.000 rows without creating 10.000 DOM nodes.

Please let me know what you think!</comment>


A day on the life of a SaaS founder who raised $4.5m - <AUTHOR> https://gipsybot.com/saas-ceo/ <comment><USER2> 14-18 hours days that feel like fun? Only us the crazy :)</comment>


Facebook/CMU Covid-19 U.S. county-by-county symptom map - <AUTHOR> https://covid-survey.dataforgood.fb.com/ <comment><USER2> These kinds of maps always end up far less enlightening than I'd hoped. Maybe because of noise from counties with low populations? Like, "Oh, there's elevated levels in Finney County, Kansas. Hmm."

Anyway I find this map a lot more useful, which lets you filter by population, show counts per capita, and limit counts to the last 7 days:

[https://rchern.github.io/covid-19/](https://rchern.github.io/covid-19/)

<comment><USER3> Well, to be fair they are measuring something different, precisely because the confirmed positives is skewed by the scarcity of testing. Since that doesn't seem to be getting fixed, other approaches are needed. So discrepancies versus number of confirmed positives is one of the things you might look for in this data as a sign that more investigation is needed. It's not intended to be an accurate accounting of covid-19 cases: "The estimates can be helpful for policymakers and health researchers to forecast potential COVID-19 outbreaks. These estimates don't represent confirmed COVID-19 cases and shouldn't be used for diagnostic or treatment purposes, or guidance on personal or business travel."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm doing some map stuff right now on a project and its cool FB is using OSM for their data. Here's a recent article on their public embrace of OSM: [https://www.engadget.com/2019-07-23-facebook-opens-up-its- ai...](https://www.engadget.com/2019-07-23-facebook-opens-up-its-ai-tool-to- openstreetmap-users.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> They in part collected this data from a little survey request modal at the top of your facebook timeline main page thingy, so just be aware that it's not at all representational of the population as a whole. Old people and young people and people who read Hacker News are less likely to have answered than would be expected.

<comment><USER6> depends on how you define "old". My personal observation-driven wild guess would be that the 40-65 year old demographic would be overrepresented in anything presented by Facebook. They are by far the most active there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I dug through the source code and extracted the JSON files and converted them to a tabular/CSV format for use outside. [https://observablehq.com/@thadk/facebook-covid-survey- data-f...](https://observablehq.com/@thadk/facebook-covid-survey-data-from- map)

If you're one of the creators, please release the data files for this kind of thing. Google started releasing only PDFs of mobility, its data was scraped through much effort, and only later did they begin releasing the official CSVs.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you read that recent random sampling from Stanford the numbers are probably 50x-85x higher

<comment><USER9> Stanford should completely retract that study. It has produced far more misleading interpretations than anything useful.

<comment><USER10> Why? Even if it's not totally random(they used Facebook ads), surely the data still tells us something?

<comment><USER11> Not necessarily. Their population survey had 1.5% positive results. The false positive rate of the test is not known for certain but I believe the 95% confidence interval goes up to 1.7%. If that were the case, _all_ the positive tests could even be false positives.

We did learn from the study that the population rate isn't outrageously high, like 30%, but I'm not sure what more we can confidently say beyond that.

<comment><USER12> What are typical false positive rates for other tests/studies?

<comment><USER8> China's false postives for Covid tests are 30%, I chest CT has a false positive of 6% [https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/a-more-sensitive-test- fo...](https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/a-more-sensitive-test-for- covid-19/).

So these test a more accurate than either of the more accurate test to diagnose Covid-19 from what I've found

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For this data to be useful, I think we first need to establish that _people who use Facebook and participate in its surveys_ represent a relatively random sample of the general population. Or adjust for all the ways in which it does not.

Otherwise, it's likely biased.

<comment><USER14> They address this:

" To help CMU measure results, Facebook shares a single statistic known as a weight value that doesn't identify a person but helps correct for any sample bias, adjusting for who responds to survey invitations. Making adjustments using weights ensures that the sample more accurately reflects the characteristics of the population represented in the data. The weight for a survey respondent in the sample can be thought of as the number of people in the population that they represent based on their age, gender and state of residence."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wish they had some confidence intervals on here. The variance between Bay Area counties (or over time) is quite high - it's rather dubious that Alameda County was at 1.8% while SF was at 0% a week ago.

Indeed, numbers > 1% for symptomatic patients in the Bay Area a week ago are implausible (likely over a magnitude too high) given confirmed case counts since then.

<comment><USER16> Every attempt I'm aware of to do a general population survey has indicated that confirmed case counts really are at least an order of magnitude lower than the real spread. I don't think it's a possibility we can reject out of hand - frankly I'm starting to swing to the position that it's been proven true.

<comment><USER15> Most general population surveys have suffered from heavy self-selection bias or insufficient specitivity. In the early days, yes, the Bay Area was probably missing 90% of cases.

Testing has ramped up though (it's pretty easy to get a test if your symptomatic), so I don't believe we're missing 90% of symptomatic cases [as defined by this survey] at this point (which is part of the reason that new cases/day have remained stable while hospitalization numbers are dropping). Think about it: if people take a survey that says they have covid symptoms, wouldn't they get tested?

<comment><USER16> I'm just not sure you're applying consistent standards here. Going to a coronavirus test center on medical advice suffers from much stronger self- selection bias and generally unreported specificity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The time dimension is the most interesting aspect for me in these charts.

Anyone aware of good world-wide corona virus datasets? I told myself I'd start looking 1-2 months from now, because they'll probably be easier to find and higher quality by then, but these posts are wetting my appetite.

<comment><USER18> This one is kind of nice, but only available at the country level: [https://github.com/datasets/covid-19/blob/master/data/countr...](https://github.com/datasets/covid-19/blob/master/data/countries- aggregated.csv)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why did they have to include "Flu" in the dropdown? I am afraid if that will loose a little focus of this tool and the seriousness of the pandemic.

<comment><USER20> "The estimates can be helpful for policymakers and health researchers to forecast potential COVID-19 outbreaks. These estimates don't represent confirmed COVID-19 cases and shouldn't be used for diagnostic or treatment purposes, or guidance on personal or business travel. Facebook's research partners are committed to only using survey results to study and help contain COVID-19."

The dataset is explicitly not intended for general public consumption, and having access to flu and COVID symptom overlap is important for epidemiology research and disease surveillance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why would anyone trust facebook with this data?

<comment><USER22> "Facebook uses aggregated public data from a survey conducted by Carnegie Mellon University Delphi Research Center. Facebook doesn't receive, collect or store individual survey responses."

But, what are you afraid Facebook would do with these survey results?

<comment><USER23> Target snake-oil covid-19 "cures" to people who responded as having symptoms or being particularly at risk?

I've seen various scams (fake "hacking" services, weight loss products, etc) both organic (liked by tons of very obvious compromised/fake accounts) & paid, and when reported they said it doesn't violate our terms of use, so I wouldn't be surprised if this scummy company does the same thing again.

<comment><USER22> Facebook isn't the wild west anymore. Last month they banned ads for anything remotely COVID-19 related, including hand sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, medical masks, etc.

"...we are now prohibiting ads for products that refer to the coronavirus in ways intended to create a panic or imply that their products guarantee a cure or prevent people from contracting it."

[https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/coronavirus/#exploitative-...](https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/coronavirus/#exploitative- tactics)

<comment><USER23> Presumably hacking services (whether real or scams) were also banned and yet I saw them and even reported them and nothing has been done.

<comment><USER22> I don't doubt scammers are able to temporarily sneak their ads past the approval team. But Facebook certainly doesn't make it easy these days, nor allow morally questionable targeting. They're constantly shutting down controversial categories (crypto, cbd, etc), it's always a hot topic in Facebook ad buyer groups.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Art and taste in the age of the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/art-and-taste-in-the-internet-age <comment><USER2> Interesting. This article and the book it reviews are expansive in their investigation of the determinants of taste, but I've been thinking over the last few years that aesthetics are probably more socially determined than I'd thought. Does that mean everyone in the same house will have the same tastes? Not necessarily. But it does mean what you judge as good or bad will be connected, probably inseparably, to some social group's understanding ('your people.')

If you connect tastes to groups of people rather than to preferences in the characteristics of something, it follows that taste will have trends (as people have generations), that will tastes differ from one city to another, etc., which is what we observe.

<comment><USER3> A recent reddit thread had a lot of interesting material on taste:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/4oiqvw/dan_brown_don...](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/4oiqvw/dan_brown_donates_300000_euros_to_library_to/d4dczoy)

<comment><USER2> Great comment there. _" Taste creates groups, or at the very least polices their boundaries..."_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Somewhere in America, there is a college professor who will never buy a Prius. The outlier is not extraneous to the type; the outlier is essential to the type.

 _sniff_ and theez iz the essence of the Hegelian dialectic, and so on and so on...

<comment><USER5> Instantly recognisable as the inimitable Slavoj Žižek.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > That was a waste of our time and, much more important, of the advertiser's > dollars.

No, my time is more important. I hope that was supposed to be sarcastic.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's not accidental. See "The Tastemakers"[1], about food trends and how they're manipulated. Then there's the woman who introduced and named kiwi fruit.[2] Also passionfruit, spaghetti squash, starfruit, rambutan, tamarind, cherimoya and sunchokes. She runs a big produce distributor.

For fashion, this clip from The Devil Wears Prada says it best.[3]

The Color Association of the United States doesn't have the clout it used to, because brands have moved to China, but for years, they orchestrated the consumer electronics cycle from grey to black to white to off-white and back to grey again.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IHGVS5U](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IHGVS5U) [2] [https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248222](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248222) [3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5WWy_0VLS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5WWy_0VLS4)

<comment><USER8> Frieda Caplan did not name all of the fruits you listed. Most of those are names dating from centuries ago. The article you linked says that she marketed them in the US, but I'm not sure how successfully; a lot of those fruits are predominantly sold in various "ethnic" markets, and are not especially well known or relevant in mainstream American culture.

<comment><USER9> "Starfruit" is purely an American name, dating from the 1970's (its known as Carambola elsewhere). So it could be Caplan's doing?

This article credits her with the name "Champagne Grapes" for fresh Zante currant grapes: [http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-kiwi-queen- fried...](http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-kiwi-queen-frieda- caplan-turns-90-20130809-story.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Chat hits 1B messages per day - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=91351698919

<comment><USER2> I would be impressed if Facebook could just get their act together and fix the damn client.

On slow connections (most of those available in 3rd world countries like Jordan where I am now), Facebook chat delivers messages with huge delays (up to 3 minutes) and _out of order_. You have no idea how disconcerting it is for 'real-time chat' to behave in this manner, and makes it almost unusable.

Everyone here starts off Facebook conversations with "why are you not on MSN?" because it's a give that you must have a really good reason to be using Facebook's poorly-engineered excuse for a chat client instead of one of the more mature chat services that actually work as expected.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do many of you still use IM _other than_ Facebook regularly? I used to, but most of my peers have dropped off AIM/MSN.

And perhaps more generally, I've found that Twitter/Facebook let me keep control of my time rather than the synchronous "chat with me now" nature of IM.

<comment><USER4> I hardly use Facebook chat at all. Most of my actual friends use Gtalk/Jabber.

<comment><USER5> Me too. And almost none of my friends use Facebook chat either. Is MSN/Yahoo something that caught on among younger people in the US?

<comment><USER6> The fact that we're posting on this site is pretty good proof that we're not a good example of the average user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to admit that I am a little surprised and, quite honestly, a bit frightened that some of you are using facebook chat.

Do you no longer have to go to facebook.com to use it or something?

<comment><USER8> Pidgin has a plugin that supports it, Adium has it built-in, and Meebo and Digsby officially support it.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, with Adium and combined contacts, it's just another service that I've got plugged in and don't even think about. I've got a friend that signs into Facebook or AIM almost always mutually exclusively, but they're just "online" to me, regardless of the medium.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder how this compares to the volume of other popular services.

</comment><comment><USER11> I am more interested in the infrastructure they use to host facebook chat. So far, I just know that they use erlang as the backbone language for facebook chat. Maybe Ejabberd.

<comment><USER12> they keep promising xmpp but who knows really =/

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Now if only bitlbee would add support for Facebook chat so that those of us who prefer screen+irssi for our IM contacts can keep in touch with those friends who are on Facebook.

That's the #1 feature bitlbee is missing, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER14> I continue to use Adium with AIM/MSN but now 90% of my chat is through facebook.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've been using facebook chat almost exclusively for friends I've made in the last year.

MSN/Yahoo for older friendships.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't like facebook chat very much, though it generally works so maybe I shouldn't complain.</comment>