It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable.
Apple is no longer the underdog that it was 40 years ago, and some fanboys pretending it to be is despicable. It's a monopoly and the only thing it cares is it's profitability.
Despite all the sugarcoated lies Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have been saying to the senate, they are a monopoly. Stop letting them deceive us.
Let's take the power back. Stop enabling such deception. Death of a country is determined by it's governance. Death of a society is determined by it's culture and greedy monopolies.
The way we can claim our power is by raising awareness to the point that the powers that are will take note and take action.
> It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time.
Oh please. Nobody who actually uses Apple feels that way. Though I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps.
One of the downsides of being primarily an iOS dev is not being able to participate in activities like game-jams because there's no way to casually share my stuff with other users.
> Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30%
Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores?
Apple protects its users better than the other major players. Their privacy and accessibility features alone are unparalleled, and they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices. The entities which Apple protects users from are often the ones crying foul.
> the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.
> I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
> they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices.
Which is excellent. Apple taking a cut for apps I have no problem with. They have support, I trust them with privacy/security and so on. That costs money.
The interesting discussion is how much apple can claim to own a part of profits made in the apps, by selling content (in-app purchases).
On one hand: if a game is free for a trial, and you can unlock the full game I think that should count as an app purchase (the alternative would be to not have in-app upgrades and just have 2 apps, which was a worse situation).
But on the other hand: if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.
On the other hand, if they offer a recipe app for free (because it contains no recipes, and let's face it, that's how you get quick user interest), then purchase recipes for $1.x each to cover the amortised app creation cost, you're basically just sidestepping the app store cut by any other name.
I don't think Apple should be allowed to charge a cut from a subscription app for example. Just because I can watch Netflix on my iPhone doesn't mean it's wrong that I can download a $0 app, and then pay Netflix for the content without Apple seeing one cent from it.
But what app couldn’t be either a subscription or be unlocked via in app purchase?
The dominant ios business model for apps currently is a basic version free to download, bigger functionality unlocked via in app purchase. Up front app costs are fading.
Agreed. So the current model of “take a cut of everything” makes it very simple because they don’t need to differentiate between unlocking a full version of a game and buying a monthly subscription to music.
The first I think is obviously right the second is insane (and in between there are an infinite number of cases).
I don’t think the status quo is acceptable though.
> if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.
Ah that sounds like a fair point at first, but it could be argued that you gained access to those sales because of Apple.
More importantly, they're processing payments for you, and every payment processor out there takes a cut, one way or the other.
So if I use windows does that mean that every app dev must pay 30% to Ms because you can argue that I am using their apps thanks to Microsoft. And hey, why don't we also pay Intel or and, who did the processors?
Microsoft does allow the installation of apps from any source, and they can handle payments independently from Microsoft, Windows Store is not the only app distribution method on Windows.
Not on Windows, but on the Xbox the official store is certainly the only app distribution method. The iPhone/iPad actually have a lot in common with the Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo: they are devices that come bundled with a locked down operating systems that only allow the user to buy apps from a first party store. You can argue phones are more general purpose than gaming consoles - but with current consoles containing video players/photo viewers/web browsers/etc that is not exactly true either.
Windows/Android are different because the operating system itself is the product. People don't necessarily buy a Google phone or a Microsoft desktop, but they can still buy and run the operating system separately from the physical product.
The question is: if Apple should be forced to open up the iPhone ecosystem, why shouldn't Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo be forced to open up their systems for third party stores? Why are they allowed to take a mandatory cut from anyone that wants to publish on their platform, but Apple is not? To me it seems like a double standard if only Apple is forced to open up, but Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are not.
Perhaps all hardware that is sold should be open and customisable, and I should be able to install a fresh OS on any piece of hardware I buy. That makes sense to me, but then that doesn't actually solve the problem at all. People will still buy an iPhone and use iOS, so now the OS itself needs to be open in some way. How do you write any of this in law at all?
The difference here is that Microsoft/Sony loose money to sell as many machines as possible to generate a viable market for the gaming studios (and obviously for them).
On an iPhone, apple has made plenty of money already.
In any case, the main thing here is not the 30% that they charge when you buy the software, is that they want to keep getting 30% for the services and such, which is crazy.
But I provided a range to absolve myself of the culpability of a citation. :)
Jokes aside, I'm sure you can find processors charging < 2% for customers with high volume. But you're right, it's certainly not standard. Maybe 2-4% is a more accurate range.
Do stores pay a percentage of each sale to the mall?
That seems directly comparable. The store wouldn't have any sales without the mall's infrastructure so it seems like they would be owed a cut of everything that happens in the store
That's not uncommon. But normally the mall isn't the only mall in town.
I consider Amazon and the Apple App store to be not like stores or malls but like streets or cities.
They are the market, not in the market, and if someone wants to enter the market they have to pay Apple/Amazon for the privilege. They bought/built the street and now instead of charging a cut they are charging a tax.
I meant the case in the topic where they are not processing the payments.
I did get access to a market/users via the store but I still don’t think that makes Apple eligible for a cut of sales in all apps that they don’t process.
Take an interesting case like a subscription fee for content, not just an app cut.
No one is angry about cuts from app prices (or prices that are effectively upgrades of an app e.g. from trial to full).
What I'm angry about is when apple wants X% of the price of content whhen they don't produce the content, they don't process the transaction. All they do is host the store where the $0 client app sits. I don't think it makes sense.
> Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores?
Nice job of misinformation right there! Apple should send you a check for that one! Let me quote you the article we are commenting on:
> Apple has removed Epic Games’ battle royale game Fortnite from the App Store after the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee
How many of the one you named did the same? Weird how it's 0 right?
Okay now let bring something you said yourself, how many of them block side loading, which is a great way to bypass this? Again 0.
A fee for a service is perfectly fine, you are the only one trying to argue anything about this. What we are arguing is that Apple is forcing people to pay that fee, even though there's perfectly valid alternative that can be done, and that this practice is wrong. None of the company you are citing does that.
30% is like paying govt taxes... with which govts builds roads, infrastructure, what not. None of the app stores (including many of the alt app stores) needs that much.
>Apple protects its users better than the other major players.
If "other major players" are the baseline, then nothing is going to improve. They all stink.
For example, think why apple made it super easy to approve auto renewing payments but made it so hard to unsubscribe (which is hidden deep in settings).. if that's not dark UX then I don't know what is? Lots of scammy apps make use of this. Do they get removed from the app store inspite of all their negative reviews and customer complaints? mostly not.. best case, takes months..
Their review system is totally random, and that's what makes it painful. There's easy way to trick them for some things, so I wouldn't consider this as an actual proper safety net. It does give the impression of safety to the end user though, I guess that's the intent.
Apple uses techniques from totalitarian regimes. They decide, judge and control everything. There's no freedom at all. You can only use what Apple decide you can use. But it does provide some kind of safety, or at least a feeling of safety (there will always be security flaws). After, is it a good thing?
That you know off.
The security is provided by the operating system, not the review process.
The last layer, and that's the most efficient one, which exists on most systems is you by choosing what you install (most because some phones/computers manufacturers adds pre-installed crapwares)
I can tell you that across all my devices I don't think any malicious apps made its way there neither (as for you with your ios device, I will never be entirely sure). And this, without apple random reviews.
"I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps"
I think this sentence means you agree with the comment you're replying to. That's basically all Apple needs to do, if you can install apps in a way that doesn't involve Apples store then they can do and charge whatever they want with it.
The only reason people have a problem with Apples 30% cut and review restrictions is because there's no other option.
I'm fine with Apple taking 30%, 50%, or 90% of revenue on the App Store. Running the App Store isn't free, and Apple is the party best positioned to assess their own costs. However, the App Store should not be the only way to install software on my phone.
Critically, if I was able to sideload apps, Apple wouldn't charge 90%, because then no developer would ever use the store. A central repository of curated, vetted apps is a key selling point for the iPhone. Apple will want to maintain that feature, as they should, but they have to put in the work to compete.
I have always considered Apple making a "Phone" with more computing capabilities, while Google was trying to a PC down to a Phone size.
And in the case I agree the Phone should not be able to side load Apps. It is locked precisely because it is a Phone. And there would be 100x fewer support calls just because of that . Remember there are 1 Billion iPhone users. I can bet 900M of them dont even know what HN or programming.
I am wondering if Apple shoudl allow iPad to side load App, given iPad is more like PC working in Tablet form factor.
And release an iPad Nano.
I mean if customer really think they should have side load Apps they would buy the Nano.
( That is of course ignoring the complexity of line up )
Personally I dont want the hassle of supporting people side loading apps and then calling for help. I would much rather Apple keep it the current way.
And I have no problem with Games being charged 30% cut.
But for some reason I think Apps and other Services should be charged 15% of less. Given Apple already split the Apps and Gaming Section in the App Store. I dont see this would be a problem.
The reason I, and I assume many others, have less of a problem with that is that you can fairly easily still download and play fortnite without the Play Store. As far as I know that’s not an option on iOS outside of jailbreaking your phone.
It's App Store policy and payment handling within apps, not so much about being to install it. I don't like to see trillion new payment providers, I also don't like to see monopolies. It's a very long and big discussion.
But I do wonder, can and _would_ you do payments in a non store app with their own payment provider? E.g. the fortnite you have downloaded and installed outside of the play store?
The lawsuit is about app distribution on iOS as well as the 30% cut.
There won't be anymore than what the web already has. Stripe or Paypal would likely be popular choices. Payment processors are required by law to be PCI compliant, though that doesn't guarantee they are.
Yes I would do payments in a non app store app with their own payment provider if I felt I trusted the app. It's no different than paying on any website (there's no Apple review process for websites).
If you already downloaded if from outside the app store, why do you need to use an in-app payment provider?
At this point it's just like any software on your computer, you can pay outside of it, and use a code or similar to indicate you paid for it.
It's only a matter of convenience to want to pay in-app. It can also be a lock-in strategy from the developer - and this is what this whole thread is about.
We already do it over the internet, there are many players as payment gateway. To secure it, the payment systems need to improve and have proper notifications, 2FA etc. and not rely on benevolence and whims of the monopolies.
iOS Appstore users pay, android users dont. iOS is where the money is which is why everyone is up in Arms. Android is the ugly poor mans cousin of mobile phones where inspite of being the largest the app ecosystem remains small. I see why Apple is trying to protect their Ecosystem and so does android.
There’s a difference between financing a phone and leasing it. A carrier subsidy is effectively a loan that you can use to buy the phone (which you then own).
In Canada all the major carriers are pushing leasing for the newest phones.
You can still finance the phone at a subsidized rate but the deals are with leasing.
Telus has "bring it back".
You pay 0$ upfront for the phone, but do pay an additional recurring monthly fee for the phone.
After 2 years you bring the phone back. If u want to keep it you have to pay for the remaining cost of the device.
If I just financed it, lower end or older phones would be $0 upfront, but high end phones be paying $500 as an example upfront on top of the financed recurring fees.
Rogers has "upfront edge" where you pay 0$ upfront for a top end device.
You have to return at 2 years.
Bell does the same thing with "device return options
Lower upfront costs.
The choice is yours: at the end of the 2-year term, you have the option to return your smartphone in good working condition, upgrade if you wish, or keep it and pay back the Device Return Option deferral amount.
It's too long since I entered these contracts, is it loaned/leased ?
Where I am the loan would be on the purchasing money, so technically you own the device, but would have to pay your carrier the remaining price + some penalty if you needed to stop the contract, or give back the device + penalty if you are not in a position to pay. The device stays with you after the loan/contract period is done.
There is still the carrier lockin, so you can't change carrier willy-nilly before the loan is paid, but that wouldn't stop you from selling your phone to someone else using the same carrier for instance.
Same in Sweden, if you can't afford to, or don't want to spend the cash for a >1000$ phone. You can lock yourself in for 12-24 months on a provider with a raised monthly fee. Very common in my experience.
Google also kicked Epic out but no body is talking about that not even Epic. Maybe because Statistically Android users are less likely to pay for apps and services than iOS users. So clearly iOS is where the money is and nothing wrong in Apple trying to protect that.
It's perhaps less important because software can still be installed on Android without Google Play. Don't forget that Apple has already cut special deals with Amazon, so the extortionate 30% is negotiable, if one is big enough to fight.
Because its the sort of above most transaction fees of most payment providers in the world.
But Apple can ask whatever they want. They can't block side-loading though. That's the uncompetitive part.
You can run your store and pick whatever terms you like. You can't use your marketshare in hardware sales to bundle a forced store.
Imagine Tesla charging you 30% of any grocery shopping (i.e. would refuse to open the doors if the store didn't share 30% of its gross revenue).
I mean, its literally, textbook anti-competitive. The App Store as a store isn't competing fairly, on its own merits.
Also keep in mind, that this whole getting raped with transaction fees is a 'america-only' thing. This is much better regulated in the rest of the world.
Specifically the costs are fixed, so anything that is a percentage is just fucking nonsense. It doesn't cost more to charge 5 euro's than it does to charge 1 euro. It uses the same electricity, the same personel costs. There is a point where its get more expensive because of risk management, but thats above 100 euro per transaction.
Percentages on transactions are generally only allowed when its a loan. Which is why Americans are always buying things with credit cards ("loaning the money"). Most people pay for things with their own money, not with a loan. (i.e. direct bank transfer). And those transactions have a fixed transaction costs. Worst case 1 euro (low-volume, your personal webshop) all the way down to 5 euro cent (high-volume, i.e. the supermarket).
So explain to me where the hell you get your 3% from? You just sound like an already boiled frog saying 'are you sure we can survive in cold water?'
Not trying to debate, just having an idea: the percentage versus fix cost is coming from the tax system. You don't pay a fix dollar tax per citizen, but a percentage of your income. I can see private companies doing the same.
>You don't pay a fix dollar tax per citizen, but a percentage of your income
Yeah, the government has a monopoly on that.
> I can see private companies doing the same.
You must be American then. This is where all this friction comes from. Corporations aren't people, nor should they be government.
This is not because the people who work there are bad people or something, but because they are legally binded to do whatever maximizes profits. They are by definition not operating in the common good (they are not supposed to!). There is no democratic oversight.
You can imagine companies doing the same. As a European, i can't. It's a problem. And its fake innovation anyway. Where is the America that did real research and real innovation? That put people on the moon? These days all you guys are good for is 'bussiness model innovations'. Ways to cheat, extort or externalize the costs. Quality of life is just going downhill the more of these type of products one uses. Technology is regressing.
I don't want side-loading apps on iPhone. The moment you allow side-loading you can no longer trust the apps on a phone. Is it really facebook or was facebook removed and replaced with something else.
You don't have to side load anything. If you think it's worth paying 30% for the Apple review process etc. You're free to do so. Just let others make their own decisions.
To side-load an app on an iPhone you need to sign it with a developer certificate (and apple will actually do it for you). You can only run the app if you trust said certificate (you will get a prompt saying something like going in the settings, tapping on the developer name and then tapping "Trust". You would then need to confirm using your passcode/faceid/touchid). It's not like anyone can put apps on your phone and being able to launch them without any friction.
Side loading on Android does not require a certificate. What people are suggesting is allowing side loading something like fortnite to by-pass the App Store, like what is possible on Android.
Side loading is not the same as installing apps as a developer for testing.
2nd, sure you need a passcode etc to accept the install, this every-now-n-then gets by passed.
What happens if you get picked up by the police, and your stuff is confiscated, and you get it back, how do you trust your apps on your phone if side-loading is allowed?
You can't. You can't know if whatsapp was replaced with whatsapp that syphon your data.
Nobody knows because there are no market forces to determine what the cut should be. Nobody can distribute apps other than Apple, they just declare that they want/need 30% and everybody else has to pay it.
> It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users.
This would suggest that Apple is shooting itself in the foot—which is exactly the opposite of antitrust policy. Put simply: Apple’s behavior seems to be hurting itself and benefiting competitors (Samsung/Google) which, broadly speaking, would seem like an uphill battle for anyone arguing to open up the iOS ecosystem.
People who still don’t understand why people pay for Apple products really lack basic piece of wisdom, making their opinion less valuable. Yet they still boast about this particular misunderstanding of theirs.
Maybe because historically the developer industry has shown that some bad actors can ruin it for everyone? That maybe the App store review process is to benefit ME, as an Apple customer? I WANT a curated App store, simply because I? CANT trust any random app downloaded onto my phone. I pay Apple for that service.
Apple App Store customers are NOT blind sheeple afraid of freedom; I am NOT interested in having a phone that can run any and all software! The industry has proven it cant be trusted, so I pay Apple to gatekeep that for me.
If you still dont get that, I dont know what to tell you...
All developers are scummy and trying to make a living without paying 30% of your earnings to the platform is just too much to ask.
Even though YOU purchased the device YOU don't want to be able to run any and all applications, even when YOU might really really want to, full stop. Apple should own what YOU can do on your device, and since YOU said it, EVERYONE should just agree to it.
It is interesting that we criticise monopoly in one form (apple), but encourage it in another ("It is the user's property"). If we go down the logical road of "why monopoly is bad" it is because property may not be utilised in the most effective way for the common good, all property is monopoly.
I wonder if auction based app store costs are a possible solution to the increasing developer frustration with Apple? Self Assessed Licenses Sold via Auction across many marketplaces may help combat monopoly.
I can see Apple (with their privacy angle) moving towards facilitating users selling their data/data unions. Perhaps some other radical-liberalism ideas could come through too.
Not all property is monopoly. I own my phone but no one has to use my phone to make calls, there are other sources of phones and places to make a call. If I lived in a town where I was the only person with a phone and was charging people to use it then that would be a monopoly. It's about demand as well as supply. There is no demand to use my phone specifically over any other phone.
True, but you are free to install only free apps, or no apps, or only your own apps pushed directly onto the phone. In fact you are free to fully operate without iCloud/AppStore (if I'm not mistaken)
I like the 30% cut for the App Store. It provides them incentive to promote & sell apps, and make sure the App Store is a smooth experience for users, & a profitable one for developers. It’s certainly healthy, if on the high side. But I’d sure rather have a healthy app ecosystem than an unhealthy one.
The problem with them experimenting with lowering the rate is once its lowered, imagine the fuss which would ensue if they then raised it.
30% of subscriptions/coin purchases is too much. Possibly warranted for actual app sales due to the review process, but after the app is sold 30% of every subsequent payment is a protection racket.
What nonsense. As an Apple customer, the App store is the number one reason I use them - I dont want malware or scummy developers on my phone and I am happy with Apple charging a fee to developers in this manner.
It's not like anyone going to switch phones because your app is not on there. Your app is just one of many other apps I use on my phone.
Developers are very much looking at this the wrong way - the 30% fee is the price developers must pay to access Apples customers.
> I dont want malware or scummy developers on my phone
Despite what many folks say, the App Store review process doesn't protect from bad developer behavior. See the various controversies surrounding social media apps that used many shady tracking techniques. And those apps are among the most popular... you'd think they would be "reviewed" more thoroughly!
What would a future perfect review system look like?
How well do Apple, Google, Microsoft perform against that perfect system? What resources do they dedicate to the task?
There's apparently some ways for malware to avoid detection. So yet another arms race whackamole.
Frankly, as a noob consumer, it's exhausting. It definitely impacts my spending.
FWIW, one of my besties worked on an audit tool which runs apps in a sandbox, screening for malware and whatnot. My impression was that it was a lot of effort for little reward.
In conclusion, sorry for braindump, thank you for reading this far:
Freemium will be sidelined into its own wasteland. Like that recent piece about journalism: "truth is expensive, lies are free."
Many people buy Apple hardware because that's where most of the apps are, especially the iPad. I purchased an iPad for my kids for precisely this reason, and regarding the actual software that Apple provides, I am not at all impressed (e.g. app store is a mess, app approvals for kids is very broken). I am also aware that this extortionate 30% transaction cost is likely being passed on to me.
If I could get all the games and educational apps we use on the iPad on another platform, I would ditch Apple in a heartbeat.
What monopoly? Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple and enter into their rotten walled garden. If you "pay damn much and buy the phone", you are doing it of your own volition.
"Take the power back" by not continuing to give them your money.
Take the money back and go where? Live in a hut? It's such enabling behaviors that embolden these elitists to lord over our lives. You can't let anyone be a gatekeeper to technology and progress. This applies to every major tech player. And this is the time that we need to make our voices heard.
Personally I think the best option if we could move away from iOS and Android to a pure Linux phone like Librem5. I don't think it's there yet though. Seems like Vavle have had some success in supporting gaming on Linux so having a better alternative seems possible.
Yes, sure, make your voice heard, fight against the abuses, that can only help.
But at the same time, do not pretend that there are not any alternatives. Yes, perhaps those alternatives are not as convenient, but choosing them over the "wrong" choice should be an equal part of the fight.
And "Live in a hut"? Please do not be overly maudlin. We are talking consumer electronics here - something that is still considered luxury - not fundamental philosophies of life or economic models of society.
I welcome anyone to try to live a month in Sweden without a smartphone and a credit card from a major bank, just to demonstrate how incredible dependent society has made citizen on being customers to those companies.
Just a few weeks ago there were a bit of news where you could not sign up for a corona test unless you had the bank verififed identification smartphone app installed. When the local government in charge of testing was interviewed, they said that for people without the app they would help them install it. Problem solved.
Some luxury products are very different to other luxury products.
> talking consumer electronics here - something that is still considered luxury
I disagree. A smartphone is a necessity in this current era. If for example your government requires you to install a Covid tracing app, what choice do you have besides Apple and Android (both of which removed Fortnite)?
Uninformed consumers will normalize the abusive behavior and pricing by buying the product. Mocking and complaining about unacceptable business practices is everyone's right and responsibility.
By all means, yes, mock away and raise awareness. That's good, it helps.
But I know too many people who are very vocal about how Apple is bad and how they should be stopped, and yet these people keep buying a new iThing every year.
I am sorry if my post came across as defending Apple, I certainly did not mean to do that.
I was merely trying to point out that people tend to put too much emphasis in being safely vocal (online, where you're sitting safely in your own home) against bad behavior, and not enough emphasis in actually not rewarding said bad behavior. For many, the latter option is not even present in their mind anymore.
I'm sorry, but that overrated comic strip is not relevant at all.
It shows three situations, two of which depict normal progress ("there is this useful thing that has flaws because nobody has cared enough to fix those flaws, let's try"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is out of line), and one depicts standard corporate behavior ("a brand is willfully behaving in several ways that the society knows is abusive, and fans of that brand are willfully blind towards that)"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is very much deserved).
In short, one of these things is not like the others.
I have to disagree with you there. How exactly is discussing a problem being "wilfully blind towards that"? You argue that they are supporting Apple despite this problem - but what is the alternative? Android? They have many other problems themselves, many of which overlap with those of Apple. Not use a phone? Not easily possible if you want to participate in society.
Even if you go the route of sacrificing your social life for these principles nothing will change - you are just a single lost sale amongst billions. Having people talk about the problems might actually spark change. What does pointing out this alleged "hypocrisy" achieve, besides making yourself feel smarter/superior?
That "many of which overlap with those of Apple" needs to be more specific. I can only think examples, where Apple and Android phone manufacturers are clearly different. Like forcing to use specific app store: Samsung has Google Play and own thing, modern Huawei (models without google) have support for several app stores.
Moreover, there are several "feature phone" manufacturers, phones without iOS or Android.
But if you are single lost sale amongst billions, maybe market is voting and doing it differently, than you.
Apple products are often more appliances, than real general use computers. They never hide their philosphy "Apple knows best". Many people like that; buying Apple products exactly because limited choices.
Privacy would be one area where Android/Google is generally much worse than Apple. If you care about privacy you would not buy an Android phone, but then if you care about open systems you shouldn't buy an iPhone. Now your hands are already tied.
The linked comic talks about underpaid factory workers in China - every company that sells smartphones suffers from this to some extend because tracking down supply chains many links in becomes very difficult. It is not so easy to determine with 100% certainty where the guy that sold you the refined metal for the CPU chip got his unrefined metal from. Apple has actually made big efforts in attempting to eradicate slave/child labor [1] - so if you care about human rights of labourers in third world countries you should probably buy an iPhone.
None of this is black and white, both Google and Apple have tons of problems. If you say "don't buy Apple if you don't support walled gardens", then someone else will say "don't buy Google if you don't support extensive privacy invasion". There is no correct choice - you can only fight the specific problems.
The android ecosystem and OEM's lack of support for older phones (for one) is something that is 'forcing' me to enter their walled garden. I can't, also as a customer, ignore that Apple has done a lot of things very well, but that doesn't at all stop me from also complaining about their bad practices.
Don't you think these things may have some relationship to each other? All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow; and realistically, in a for-profit company like Apple, has to be paid for in a way that will generate not just barely enough to pay for itself, but has to be paid for in a way that will generate lots of profits.
Google makes money off of advertising. Apple makes money, in part, off of taxing apps. If Apple can't tax apps, then suddenly their business model isn't nearly as appealing, and they start needing to make changes to keep things profitable -- things like maybe selling more of your data, or "encouraging" you to upgrade by not supporting older phones as well.
This whole discussion always makes me angry because right now I have a choice: I can choose to buy a product supported by app taxes, or I can choose to buy a product supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, and thus forced to look for other business models to remain profitable, I may not have that choice any more.
If Fortnite doesn't like it, why don't they just charge 50% more for the app on iOS? If people complain, just show them the math, so they know that it's the Apple Tax making things more expensive. I'm happy to pay 30% more for apps.
I understand where your arguments come from, and I do agree to the fundamental economics of it.
It all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash.
Also: Epic did actually give an option to pay less for their microtransactions if you paid them directly, and were about to refund people for their transactions in the past month for the Apple tax itself. Their rebellion is the main reason Apple retaliated like this.
> it all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash.
how does that negate the given points? These 200b is an indicator of a healthy business that can survive major downturns for a long period of time, which should be much more appealing that an open credit line and piles of debt in accounting tables, so much prevalent in the industry nowadays.
It wasn't supposed to negate his points, I said I agree to them too.
The issue is that Apple would be still be comfortably profitable at a much lower and less predatory level of Apple-tax-rate. They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. The value they provide to the developers and customers collectively for simply hosting and reviewing these apps is not 30%. As other commenters have pointed out, they are willing to pay a portion of this extra 30% if and only if it goes to the people who build the applications. It's not a supply-demand mismatch issue, it's overreach and exploitation.
On the other hand, I don't quite get what your point is about Apple being a healthy business or them not accumulating debt (which is arguably wrong, Apple has ~91,807,000,000 USD in long-term debt (out of 142B USD in non-current liabilities)). I don't think that is relevant here, let alone discounts my point about the excessive profits they've accumulated.
> They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market.
that's not how markets work. Apple is absolutely entitled to charge whatever amount of money they wish, firstly because other companies engage into trade with Apple voluntarily and no one is forcing companies into App Store, they enter it because they know they are going to make money there, and secondly because if Apple is not entitled to this money by their right of ownership of the platform that millions of customers find outstanding, everyone else is even less entitled to own and dispose of these earnings.
It is also up to Apple shareholders to decide what is comfortably profitable.
As for the debt that you mention, accounting doesn't work that way either. Their total long-term and current operational debt as of 2020 can be paid in full, by the half of their immediately available disposable cash. This IS a prime example of a healthy business.
In their profit reports I am told that the 30% is not profit it just maintains the app store. I read that from some jailbreakers, they seemed legit since it was talking about how apple locks it down too much. It was in the earnings report, so they didn't have a reason to lie (I think). I wonder if they cook the numbers or something to lie about it.
According to the article [1] - App store made 11.5 Billion $ revenue in 2017. That's like 30 million dollars per day. I'm not even going to argue that you need such money to maintain a static binary distribution platform.
Revenue is not profit. I am not saying I believe them but it was in their earnings report. I think maybe it doesn't turn profit the same way that movies lose money.
To reach a good balance you don't use rebellion, you don't need to take action. If you want to fight greed, start with yourself and then maybe your peers.
Accept what is and don't buy stuff you don't need. Hopefully we learn this before something worse than covid destroys all.
Also it's very hard task to keep a good eco system running, both Google and Apple do their best here. Most organisations crumble from the inside at their size.
Hey, actually several companies reached a size where they have the stability to offer the same service to most part of the world and it allows us to communicate basically free. We also have gadgets that is super duper advanced in our pockets. Embrace that give them some slack. Lead them by example and create a counter culture that takes all the good parts and makes them better. You got a silver plate of goodies, anyone in the past would trade that spot with you in an instance.
Payment processing alone would cost Apple that much. You easily lose 1.5%-2% in payment fees and another 2% in handling fraud and customer support queries about payments.
For example, if a payment for an app is $1.99, Apple now takes $0.60. If a customer calls support to ask a question about the purchase it can cost anywhere from $15 to $30 in call center fees, so it takes 50 purchases to make good on that. If you lower that to a $0.06 take apple would have to make 500 sales for every phone call to support.
People don't realise good customer support is very expensive.
If we disregard the app purchase (which few complain about) and focus on in-app purchases now. E.g. for buying fortnite hats or netflix subscriptions, where the in-app purchase is NOT processed by apple, surely that can't give rise to any kind of added costs for apple (customer support, transaction costs)?
No, not when they are angered by apps NOT doing that (e.g. Epic in this case, or netflix/spotify charging for subscriptions outside, etc).
This discussion is about Epic charging for in-app things outside of Apple's control. So apple can't use the argument that they have costs (support, payment) for those transactions.
Users will still call apple if there is a problem. They will not understand the difference between Epic handling some of the payments and apple handling all the other ones. Customer support cost will not go down.
When I buy a hat on Amazon Apple gets no cut and I understand that Amazon gets my customer service call if there is something wrong with my transaction.
If I buy a hat in the Epic store (and pay to epic) I don’t see why it would be very different.
Should it matter if I make the purchase in Safari or in another app?
Also: let’s forget the apps for a while. Assume I buy a navigation app for $10 on the App Store and then I visit a website and purchase gps maps for 3 countries to use in the app, for $100 each. Apple isn’t involved in that transaction. Should they claim a cut of the $300 because I can use the maps in the app?
I understand that you understand the difference between Apple, Epic, the payment processor, the credit card provider and your bank. I can assure you most people do not. I've worked in customer service. They will just call Apple.
No, in-app purchases are forced to BE proccessed by Apple.
Epic would like to proccess these themselves. They dont want apple to turn on their economic output. When you charge money for the work others do -- that's like communism.
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate.
But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?
Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it.
Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.
A big part of the value of iPhones and iPads is that you don't have to worry about installing an app that screws up your system and requires a wipe & reinstall. You don't have to worry about viruses. You don't have to worry about spending a lot of time being a system administrator, and just use it. You don't even have to worry about many types of malware, because the system protects you from poorly-behaved applications, through a combination of technical means and human review.
If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window. To see what I'm talking about, look at apps that are skirting the apple app store.
Onavo is a good example. They:
- paid teens
- to install the Facebook Enterprise Certificate
- to side-load the Onavo VPN
- to spy on their internet traffic
- to find out about new apps or websites that might be a threat to facebook (among other things)
How would the ability to sideload apps force you to install apps outside of the Apple store?
I'm not forced to use FDroid just because I have an Android phone. People aren't arguing that the app store should go away, just that consumers should have a choice.
As an analogy, if I want OEM care for my car, I can get that. It's more expensive, but it offers me strict guarantees about where parts are coming from, and I don't need to worry so much that I'll get substandard care.
The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that situation other than forcing the OEMs to compete more and push their advantages and commitment to quality.
If you look at the Mac as an example, the vast majority of software is still distributed outside the Mac App Store, usually because either:
- The software is free and the developer doesn't want to pay $99/year to Apple
- The software is paid but the developer either doesn't want to give 30% to Apple, or they want to use a pricing model incompatible with the App Store (discounted upgrade pricing, rolling subscriptions etc.)
- The software does something that violates the guidelines, or in general is incompatible with sandboxing (or would be a worse product because of it)
Because so many applications are not, or in many cases _cannot_ be made available via the Mac App Store, users of said apps are in a sense "forced" to install outside the App Store. I believe that if sideloading was feasible for iOS, many developers (and certainly the big players) would pull out of the App Store completely.
I want to make it very clear though: I don't consider this an argument against sideloading apps at all. I consider it evidence that the App Store (on both iOS and macOS) is woefully inadequate at covering the full range of software developers want to build, and that in turn hurts customers.
I would love to use my iPad for more work related stuff, but I'm a software developer, so most of my day-to-day work involves software that just cannot run on iOS. If sideloading was available I could actually use it like the "Pro" device it claims to be, rather than just a very nice content consumption device.
Why hasn't this happened on Android ? Or has it happened and I'm not aware?
I think as long as sideloading is made inconvenient enough, most consumers won't use it and therefore most developers won't provide it. But it should still be an option for the sake of consumers that want things that the walled garden can't support.
If I had to guess I'd say it's that Google's rules aren't nearly as ridiculous as Apple's. For example Apple forbids you from even mentioning that you can sign up to a service externally, let alone linking out to an external payment page.
I completely agree with you though, there should always be an escape hatch.
> I believe that if sideloading was feasible for iOS, many developers (and certainly the big players) would pull out of the App Store completely.
Why do you believe that, when it hasn't happened with the only other comparable platform after years and years of supporting this model?
Windows and Mac are not comparable, as people are not as used to their respective stores, and lots of pre-existing software actually has to go out of its way to integrate with the store, instead of the other way around.
Largely because Apple's restrictions seem to be much stricter than any other store, and lately are rubbing a lot of very big companies the wrong way.
Were sideloading permitted I could see, for example, an Epic App Store, with their 12% cut and lessened restriction on external payment processing, being a popular place for apps to move to.
> The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that situation
People will install insecure app stores to get a hot app. Facebook would likely launch a store with none of Apple’s spyware restrictions. Cisco and IBM and Microsoft would too, and with that come e.g. employer mandates for certain apps and thus certain stores.
Apple regulates its App Store. Remove its distribution control and that regulatory power diminish. That diminish meant is fine when Apple extends its App Store dominance to win at music streaming and payments. But it’s a poor argument against the App Store per se.
Unfortunately no one will start their own store because that is huge investment.
You have the chicken and egg problem there. There are no apps so no users and no one is going to add apps because you don't have users.
Big companies could make their own apps to promote their own shop but let's be honest they would have to put a lot of money to get something good that everyone would use, not just generic crap.
If a big company (e.g. Facebook) integrated their app store within their main app, there's automatically a massive userbase available - it could potentially even slightly streamline the install process for apps advertised via Facebook.
I suppose this would mean that Facebook app itself would have to be sideloaded, which would probably result in a hit they wouldn't want to take. For a while Amazon had two versions of their app on Android, one in Play store and a second one you could sideload that had their app store integrated. Based on the fact that AFAIK they now only have standalone app store for sideloading, I assume it wasn't a popular option
So now we need private companies for regulation? That’s what the law is for. If there is not a good pro-privacy stance on a third party app store, make some damn rules to have privacy enforced like the GDPR or whatever. Don’t let Apple be the law.
Just look at the PC platform Epic is coming from. It used to be just buying retail boxes, then Steam came along. Now it's Steam, Epic, Origin, Uplay. Personally, I hate keeping track of the separate apps and which games were purchased with each. So I avoid most of them even for games I want to play. Its one of the things that makes me prefer consoles.
The current situation seems more anti-business than anti-consumer (it is both). Pro-consumer would be requiring any purchase be decoupled from that distribution platform.
You seem to prefer giving people less option, because multiple stores are an inconvenience to YOU.
You know what would be a better solution for that? The same one that happens with some applications now on Android: publishing an app in multiple stores. Many apps are simultaneously published in Play Store and other stores.
For example, you could have a game published on the publisher's store. If you buy it there, the price is X. Simultaneously, you could have the same app published on Apple store for $X + 30%.
Then, you let the market decide. Increasing competition is better for consumers.
If you prefer the convenience of buying from just one store, it's OK, you can buy everything from the Apple store, and pay the premium for that. But that would also let the door open for people who want to choose where else to buy their stuff.
Because that's how the market works for buying anything.
It's like saying: how is it better to have multiple supermarkets to buy the stuff i want, if they offer the same product at different prices? Well... it's an option, nobody forces you to do it. You can always go to the same place, and know that there's going to be times when you pay more, and times when you pay less.
But you also have the chance to check on other store's offers and buy there if you want.
> How is having to navigate N stores
You don't "have to". In the end, more offer = better for consumers. It's up to each individual person to decide if they want to find better prices or just go to their default place.
> Companies dont't open their own stores, and sell the games there cheaper than at a competitors store.
Yes they do? Steam, GoG, and Itch don't coordinate their sales with each other. They offer different games at different prices at different times. Even Epic's weekly free game is designed to make people check in on the Epic store regularly instead of just buying those same games immediately on Steam.
There are a ton of PC games that are available in multiple stores, and comparison shopping will often give you different prices.
It doesn't just sound lovely, it's the reality of the PC market right now and you can either take advantage of it if you're willing to comparison shop, or ignore it and buy all of your games on Steam if comparison shopping is too much work for you. It's really not theoretical, it's how the PC market works right now.
Yes, there are some exclusives, but even that is fine, because a lot of the games that are exclusive to stores like GoG, Itch, and even Epic, flat out wouldn't have been made in the first place unless storefronts were competing with each other.
This is something that devs try to get across to gamers occasionally with Epic -- having someone step in and fully fund your game with the only restriction being that it's temporarily exclusive to a store is an unbelievably good deal, and it frees devs up to make more creative, interesting, risky games and passion projects that push boundaries and appeal to more niche audiences.
Not only are a huge portion of PC games not exclusive to specific stores, even where exclusives are concerned competition between different storefronts -- each trying to build the more attractive offering of games -- is still better than having one store owned by one company that only funds a small subset of games. PC gaming is better today than it was when only giant companies like Walmart could distribute games.
I have to admit, you've convinced me. I'm not a gamer, so I didn't have much experience with this.
My frame of reference was streaming services, where more platforms meant fever content on each, and having to pay more to watch everything you wanted. But if it is indeed this was with games, maybe multiple appstores could be the way to go.
The vast majority of games are not store exclusives. And the alternative is not a single mandatory store that magically has everything. There's a lot of apps that would otherwise launch on iPhone but don't because the developers don't want to or can't deal with Apple's fees and restrictions. (See anything that only works on jailbroken devices, or open source projects that only release on Android.)
You might want to check out GoG Galaxy. It has integrations to Steam/Epic/Origin/Uplay/etc and provides a single user interface to manage your purchases across these platforms.
Also, consoles have exclusives too. I choose PC over console anyday.
I really like the idea of a purchase being decoupled from the distribution. GOG(completely) and HumbleBundle (limited extent) seems to be the only option at the moment.
The new GoG galaxy is wonderful (even though some times it loses my steam integration and I have to log in again), it will make your life so much easier, you can really manage everything from 1 place.
Playnite is another software offering something similar, and is also quite good.
The big difference is that the platform is completely decoupled from app store.
On Windows, publishers can choose to which store they would publish, and you can choose from where you want to buy it.
On iOS you are completely at the mercy of Apple; not only won't they allow specific apps or content on the store, they seem to make exceptions for some apps/publishers. There is no way to install and use something that Apple doesn't like.
Android is quite different, since it allows to load a different store, like the Amazon one, or FDroid for open source projects (you are still more or less tied to having Google Play Services on the device, since majority of Android apps use it, but the situation is a LOT better than on iOS.)
I think it's going to be pretty hard for you to argue that the proliferation of app stores for the PC is bad for consumers.
A lot of people credit Steam (I think justifiably) with kickstarting a huge portion of the modern indie gaming scene -- precisely because they got rid of the crazy rules, agreements, and contracts of the retail boxes, which acted as a massive barrier to entry for game developers. If Steam had never been built, I don't think modern games would be even half as diverse or creative as they are.
Then we move on to storefronts like Humble and GoG, which I think have been hugely influential in pushing DRM-free games as the norm for indies. There are a lot of games that flat-out would not have DRM-free releases if GoG didn't exist. Heck, there are a lot of games that would not run on modern Windows if GoG didn't exist.
Then we move on to Epic's store, which I know gamers hate, but trust me when I say a lot of indie developers are thrilled right now to see someone forcing Steam to lower their splits. Epic has done some serious good for the indie scene. I don't like that they're encouraging exclusives, I think that's bad for gamers. But I'm not going to pretend that as a developer I'm not happy to see someone breaking Steam's stranglehold on the mainstream PC marketplace.
So yeah, there are a lot of PC stores. This has been a massive boon to the industry, there are a lot of excellent games that (I think) would not exist today if not for the diversity of marketplaces. And a lot of these marketplaces fill different niches. GoG focuses on older games, Steam offers mainstream AA titles, Uplay/Origin offer corporate AAA titles, Itch has all the really weird, creative "true-indy" stuff.
No single PC store is expansive enough to cover all of the niches of the entire market.
Even on the console side of things, the diversity of games on the PC has pushed console manufacturers to offer much wider selections of games. Are you happy that basically every indie developer and their dog is releasing their game for the Switch? A big part of that is Nintendo opening up the development process, and they did that because after the Wii U they realized that they needed to pull indie devs away from the PC to stay competitive.
And on PC, what's actually the problem with this? You can basically ignore all of the other platforms and just download your games from Steam. You can opt out of all of the complexity that you dislike.
Sure, you'll miss out on a few exclusives if you do. But you would have missed out on many of those exclusives with a unified storefront anyway, because a lot of those games just wouldn't have been created if there weren't stores that were a good fit for them to sell on. You'll miss out on just as many games if you decide to stick with curated console storefronts.
Excuse my ignorance, but why does there even need to be centralized stores at all? I understand that in the past the primary means of distribution was retail boxes, so studios had to have publishers to at least handle the physical aspect of putting games out in the market. Due to the wide availability of a fast internet connection, the mechanics of a game release is different today, and the primary means of distribution is digital.
Steam and its alternatives brought conveniences to the developers by providing easy advertisement, a streamlined way of delivering patches, an actual digital store to perform transactions, and also more recently started to serve as a major platform for the communities of many games.
I am not a game developer, but I guess that nothing that these stores provide is essential to publish a game and keep it alive, and any developer might simply put a site online, sell the game there, and allow me to pay directly to them. This is probably a niche opinion right now, but given any transaction involving digital goods such as e-books, music, software, games, etc. I am delighted whenever I see the content creator do this.
You may argue that this would limit the discoverability of games by a huge factor compared to them simply being advertised on the front page of some online store, and I agree, but I think if Steam had not grown to be as massive as it is today, that job would simply be delegated to the gaming magazines, forums, and many other independent platforms where the creators would more freely have a chance to promote their content.
> but why does there even need to be centralized stores at all?
Well, discoverability is a big problem. Yes, in theory we could do discoverability a different way, but in practice we haven't built that kind of infrastructure (yet).
There are other problems regarding payment processors and transactions/refunds, tracking where users came from for tax purposes... there's just a lot of infrastructure.
Now, that's not to say we couldn't ever get rid of centralized stores. It would just be a lot of work to build a lot of open infrastructure, get some better payment processors that are easier to sign up for, build the kind of systems and lists you're talking about around discoverability.
I don't think it's impossible to imagine a world with fewer centralized stores and more self-hosted games, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that world might be nice to live in. I just think that world is far away and that getting there would be a lot of work.
Currently, I can set up an Itch account from scratch and be selling a real game to real people for real money in, like, an hour? Maybe 2? And it'll handle stuff like archiving all of my old versions, and I won't need to set up accounts for my users, and there's a nice integrated blogging platform, and people can comment, and currency conversion is just not an issue. Plus as a user, I don't need to provide my name/address to each developer either, only Itch needs to know where/who I am. So that neatly bypasses the privacy problem of payment systems like Paypal.
Again, none of that is impossible for us to provide in a decentralized way. But the decentralized tools aren't comparable right now; if you want to sell directly it's going to be a lot more work.
Discoverability is a big one. There are indies who do have their own stores, and they ask their fans to buy through them, but majority of their sales still come from Steam.
There are some indies who are quite open with their numbers you can google around and find the details. Steam sales are also huge for old games.
But even distribution is still an issue. Even indi games today are multiple GB in size. And on the first few days of release (or sales or bundles etc.) you have huge download spikes spikes.
Sure you can put it on aws, but better make sure to read you CDN fineprint so you don't end up with astronomical aws bill. In addition steam out of the box support partial updates,which again you can implement on your own, but that too takes time.
Payment. You can google around for problems indies who tried to roll their own store had. Today you have more options some of them explicitly catering to indies but its still an issue. Aditionaly steam supports charging in foreighen currencies, you can lower price in poorer countries etc.
Additionally steam offers their SDK that includes matchmaking and netwrking and host of other feautures, that are used by a lot of games.
Then there is in game chat, friendliest integration, cheat prevention, cloud saves and steam workshop integration, forums (which suck but are still there and have some auto moderation for spam) ...
Sure you could do all of that on your own, but some of it requires quite a bit of effort.
They exist because there is value in what they do:
They put eyeballs in front of games = sales
They handle logistics and payment = do game devs want to be a gaming company or a logistics / customer service company?
They provide quality vetting, curation and discovery for customers with a reasonable degree of impartiality.
None of these are 'hard' but they take man hours and money to do well.
Would you want same in real world also ? Walmart and Costco stores where the company decides what things are best for customer's experience. If you don't want it you can always leave and go to other companies town.
I don't think the real world works very well for these metaphors (like the parent's OEM metaphor). What if Walmart required you to generate a username and password, confirm your email, and store your payment info before you shopped? When you wanted to make a cake you had to remember which store you purchased flour or chocolate chips from.
I'm not saying Apple is in the right with how it behaves, but as a user more stores have made things like playing PC games, streaming video, and even PC apps suck more.
These are billion dollar companies fighting each other for their benefit. I'm a bit skeptical about what users get.
If there were only 2 physical stores in the US, yeah, I absolutely would want the same thing. I think anyone would.
Imagine if Walmart and Costco were the only two feasible places for most people to buy groceries. Is there anyone who doesn't think that would be a giant problem for both consumers and producers?
One difference is (at least with alternate app stores on Android, and I assume it'd hypothetically be the case on iOS), regardless of where you install a mobile app from, it appears on your app drawer/home screen. You don't have to go through a specific launcher for each store/platform as you do with Steam/Origin etc. (I think... been a while since I've used any of them). So in most senses, it may not "matter" where you bought it from (assuming all app stores can do auto-updates or notify you of available updates etc.)
I don't see how consoles fix the issue, aren't they just another choice you have to make? There's three major ones and exclusivity is blocked behind a $400 paywall and having to use entirely different hardware.
The vast majority of games are available just on steam, if having choice bothers you just pick steam or maybe epic (but steam probably has more) and ignore the rest.
This is a bizarre argument to me. Can you imagine if there was only one supermarket brand, or only one department store. Don't you think that might turn out badly?
If it's really DRM that bothers you then the only big option is GOG.
> How would the ability to sideload apps force you to install apps outside of the Apple store?
The key thing to me is supporting Apple's ecosystem. That ecosystem doesn't come out of nowhere; it's supported by the Apple Tax. If Apple can't collect that tax, they have to either reduce the quality of the ecosystem, or look for revenue elsewhere, like selling your data or obsoleting older models faster.
A third party App Store doesn’t change any of this. Apple can still collect its tax in their own store. Unless of course that everybody decides to ditch Apple’s App Store, because other App Stores are better. But then you need to ask what the value of the App Store was in the first place.
When I say "tax", I mean it to be an exact analogy: something everyone in a specific domain pays in order to maintain infrastructure.
If these "alternate" app stores help to fund iOS development and maintenance, then they'll have to collect a similar amount of money. If they don't help fund iOS development and maintenance, then of course they'll be able to undercut Apple on cost; but then Apple will have less revenue, meaning they'll have to either reduce spending on iOS development and maintenance and/or look for revenue elsewhere, like forcing you to upgrade or selling your data to advertisers. At which point you have Android.
Or to put it differently: The Apple Tax is not about the value of Apple's App Store; it's about the value of the entire Apple platform.
I don't think Apple is necessarily running out of money...
And it's bit ironic you call it a tax when clearly Apple isn't a big fan of paying taxes themselves. I know, it's not a very good argument but I don't think the stakes are as dire as you make them to be.
They could separate the fee as fee paid for the Apple Store and the fee paid for maintaining the ecosystem. So if you build your own App Store you can avoid paying the Apple Store fee but have to pay the maintenance fee. Which should be reasonable amount, eg 10%. They get so many synergies either way and surely run a great profit in both cases. And if they will get a little less money than currently, boo-hoo.
> Which should be reasonable amount, eg 10%. They get so many synergies either way and surely run a great profit in both cases.
If that's true, then someone should be able to raise money for a start-up with the same business model as Apple but charging only at 10% markup; and eventually everyone would go over to them because they get the same thing but for a lower price.
> And it's bit ironic you call it a tax when clearly Apple isn't a big fan of paying taxes themselves. I know, it's not a very good argument but I don't think the stakes are as dire as you make them to be.
I'm not saying Apple aren't often jerks; their "innovation" in tax avoidance harms society and makes the world a worse place. And possibly 30% really is extortionate, jerk-like behavior. But the arguments here about forcing Apple to allow third-party app stores would not only prevent a 30% "extortionate" rate, but would prevent even a more moderate 10% rate.
iPhone sales help fund iOS. Apple makes a huge profit. They surely have enough money to sustain iOS by other means. "Poor Apple can’t finance iOS otherwise" is a poor argument.
Is that why iPhones are famously cheaper than most other options on the market, and why Apple is constantly launching so many entry-level budget options for lower-income families?
> The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that situation other than forcing the OEMs to compete more
It changes one other thing, customer experience. Apple believes fewer problems with a device is a better customer experience and with a better experience customers will return time and time again to purchase their products. It's not right for everyone, but I believe that is true for some people.
In order to deliver such an experience, they have to backup their products with exceptional service, and they do a better job at this than most companies. Now, that level of service is not cheap, not to mention most people don't want to deal with support anymore than they have to. So, to make that level of service feasible, they need to reduce the amount of service you need. For that, their solution is to lock the operating system and hardware down very tightly and vet every piece of software that can be loaded on to the phone.
For some people, all of that sounds terrible, and those people will choose not to buy Apple products. For others, it sounds like a carefree experience and they will choose to accept the trade offs for the benefits.
Bringing this full circle to your car example, there is a lot of crossover between these two worlds. Most cars have very good warranties and pretty amazing coverage while you car is under warranty... sounds a lot like Apple. Like your car, there are certain limitations on changes to hardware and software if you don't want to void that warranty. In other words, you are limited as long as you're under warranty.
So, I can appreciate Apple's desire to lock things down... yes, it benefits their bottom line, but I think they also do it for benefits to the consumer. Now, like your car, when the warranty runs out, the OEM service isn't quite so special anymore. The OEM doesn't care what you do at that point because you're on the hook for everything. I think the same should be true for iOS devices -- when the warranty runs out you should be able to request an unlock and then you can sideload whatever you want. If you like Apple's protective measures, you can continue to run in safe mode. Apple would never voluntarily do this of course, because that would increase the value of old phones and potentially deter the purchase of new models. But, it might be a strategy that the feds could pursue.
By that you also give a choice to app makers, some of whom will happily sell you out to bigcorps. Even after switching from appstore to playstore I felt how the latter is less secure than the former. It is unimaginable in the appstore for a gallery app to demand access to your sms and address book. Or that moving items to trash/hiding instead of permanent deletion would require a cloud setup. On android, it seems absolutely normal that even stock apps do that. Calculator may require your geoposition, IR remotes may require the access to your messages. Often it's not just a suggestion, they refuse to work if you do not comply. And that's only the "safe" playstore.
Now imagine that Epic wins the fight, has millions of teens on the fortnite needle and no one to prevent them or some inside bad actor to demand whatever device clearance they want. The same goes for regular apps. I'm sure there are well-intended galleries, calculators and remotes, but they are buried under tons of promoted evil contracts, never seeing neither the light, nor a profit/visibility.
Apple may be a bit greedy with a 30% share, but really acts in interest of its customers by kicking the hell out of arbitrariness.
> By that you also give a choice to app makers, some of whom will happily sell you out to bigcorps.
No. If the app wants to sell me out to bigcorps, Apple will ban them from the store.
Of course, as a consumer, I'll have the choice to leave the Apple store and follow my favorite apps elsewhere. But if the 3rd-party stores end up with a reputation of being insecure, then consumers will refuse to use them. And everything will be fine.
> Now imagine that Epic wins the fight, has millions of teens on the fortnite needle and no one to prevent them or some inside bad actor to demand whatever device clearance they want.
Then Apple will ban them from the store, and teens will either follow them elsewhere, or they won't.
In theory, this is already possible with Android. But people can't have this argument both ways.
- If jumping ship to Android is easy and available to everyone who owns an Apple device, then clearly having an escape hatch out of Apple's store isn't a big deal and consumers are smart enough to choose whether or not they want to download apps from a secure store.
- If consumers aren't smart enough to choose their own platform based on security, and the cost and difficulty of moving outside of Apple's ecosystem is the only reason why stupid teens aren't being exploited by Fortnite right now, then clearly the "consumers voluntarily choose to stay with Apple" argument is nonsense.
Nobody is talking about forcing Apple to get rid of their store. You will always have the choice to opt into downloading apps only from a secure, strictly managed, curated storefront.
>But if the 3rd-party stores end up with a reputation of being insecure, then consumers will refuse to use them. And everything will be fine.
This logic will not work for fortnite users, because you do not expect a knowledge about insecure stores more prevalent among them more than that there is fortnite. You logic works for highly logical and disciplined people, but not for those who want that unique thing that everyone has. Epic simply doesn't care as much as apple/google about a platform sanity, because it is not their net loss in the end. It's the reason very similar to why we ban drugs off the streets. Drugs are fun, but they have heavy strings attached, and much less than everyone realizes that in full detail, while sellers lose nothing.
>You will always have the choice to opt into downloading apps only from a secure, strictly managed, curated storefront.
You seem to have missed the "app-makers" part. If apple to allow more profiting stores, the culture of selling there will grow exponentially and there will be no apps left in appstore beyond few generic and very safe-statused. All custom calculators, galleries and unique apps will be able to demand your AB, geo, etc, because it is even more profit. And they will be listed at the top because more money means more promotion. It is a systematic problem, not just one of a choice.
> If apple to allow more profiting stores, the culture of selling there will grow exponentially and there will be no apps left in appstore beyond few generic and very safe-statused.
Then why hasn't this already happened? Are app developers free to abandon iOS and move to Android or not? Why haven't they all done so?
And if developers can't realistically abandon iOS or reject Apple's terms and remain profitable, then doesn't that add a lot of evidence to the idea that Apple is a duopoly with a stranglehold over a significant section of the market?
> this logic will not work for fortnite users, because you do not expect a knowledge about insecure stores more prevalent among them more than that there is fortnite.
Why haven't the Fortnite users all moved to Android so they can install the manipulative apps and games that aren't available on iOS?
If they're free to switch platforms, and they're not smart enough to avoid following bad apps around to lower-quality platforms, then why have they stayed on iOS?
> Then why hasn't this already happened? Are app developers free to abandon iOS and move to Android or not? Why haven't they all done so?
Some of this is due to Apple trying to push for products to be sold for money (up-front, upgrades, subscriptions) rather than being free and advertising supported. Google pushes for apps to be free and advertising based because they are an advertising company.
The second is that android phones may be bought by people who do not intend to use a lot of the smartphone/app features of the device. Apple users tend to go into the store and onto the web more often.
The third being that Apple products tend to attract more profitable demographics of people - people who actually are willing to pay money for things.
These extend outside of the App Store as well, which is one reason why Google pays quite a bit of money to Apple for Google search to be the default search engine of Safari.
I know you're not the original commenter(s) and I don't want to falsely attribute their arguments to you, but this is all kind of arguing in circles. The things you describe seem to me to be market forces that go beyond, "consumers will just go wherever the apps are."
If Apple users are generally higher spenders, generally more advanced users that buy apps more often -- then that sounds a lot to me like market pressures that will make an official app store attractive even if iOS allows sideloading. In which case, why are people so frightened of sideloading?
If iOS allows third-party stores, all of the same demographic forces you describe will still exist. Consumers will still want to use a store that offers up-front pricing rather than ads, the iOS market will still be filled with power users who buy apps more often, and they'll still want their apps to be included in a user-friendly, secure store.
If those users you describe are attractive enough to force companies to target them now, then they'll still be attractive enough to force companies to target them after third-party app stores are introduced.
I don't know how to reconcile "devs target iOS because of its unique, opinionated user-base who want a secure platform" with "users are dumb and just follow bad apps without thinking". It can't be both -- either Apple users are too dumb to understand security decisions and can't be taught to avoid shady 3rd-party ad-filled stores, or Apple users are smart enough to consciously opt into a locked-down environment and they understand the implications and tradeoffs of that choice. But how can they be both?
Thanks for the cue, I didn't know that. But I'm afraid that most "stock" users will never use that option. Heck, even knowing it I can't be sure if I want to spend time to research this (there is a word "jailbreak" behind your tip, right?) or just to admit that my switching experiment failed and to go buy yet another iphone instead.
This idea of faking may be the solution against bad actors, but not until apple and google would make that option official. And even then most of naive users will be tricked and burdened into not using it.
I would argue that the technical limitations of iOS are what accomplishes this, rather than app review. For a malicious actor, sneaking prohibited behavior past app review is incredibly easy - look at what Fortnite just did! The reason that apps on iOS can't damage your device is that apps are sandboxed, and that the OS requires user permission to access data and places limits on how many resources an app can use. There's no reason that the same sandboxing system couldn't be applied to apps from outside the store.
(VPNs and provisioning profiles are sort of an exception to this, because they can escape the sandbox, but a) the number of scary warnings presented by the system should be enough to limit their impact, and b) they will also continue to exist separately from the app store issue).
Sandboxing is important, but is only one part of the protections.
There's also:
- App store guidelines on what is and is not permissible in different cases
- Restrictions against using private APIs
- Restrictions against jailbreaking the device
There are a variety of VPN apps available on iOS. Why was Onavo blocked? Because it violated the guidelines on the use of the information, which is the kind of thing that it difficult to automate.
Restrictions against using private APIs are semi-automated, and would be difficult to completely automate.
The fact that you can't get an iOS app that jailbreaks the device in order to do whatever it wants is in part due to human review - if one existed in the store, it would get pulled, and the developer cert would get revoked. Jailbreaks exist, and human review in the app store is one way they are mitigated.
I for one remember the bad old days when playing a CD could (and did!) install a rootkit.
Here's already another platform that does just fine with sandboxing. It's been running for 27+ years. It's called a the web browser. Restrictions against using private APIs.... you can't call any private APIs, it's impossible. Find an exploit? It's generally fixed in a few days.
Software isn't even installed, new versions are downloaded daily or more so the concept of sandboxing as been throughly tested and proven effective for those 27 years.
The difficulty with that argument is that Apple has gone out of their way to make webapps second class citizens. PWAs can't do everything installed apps can.
But that's not the point - the point is, sandboxing largely solves these issues without the need for restrictions on side loading, restrictions to a single app store or similar abuses of consumers rights.
Apple should build a better sandbox, the idea that "private APIs" exist and the only thing stopping them from being used is a basic string search on the app store review is pretty horrifying.
And then you notice that your browser demands almost the same amount of resources as a 60+fps 3d game for presenting you a just a bunch of static images and some text. It is apples to oranges comparison, because a performance requires an unsandboxed, non-emulated native env, which is hard to protect from exploits. Replace a browser with any OS in existence and see how secure it is to execute an arbitrary binary on it.
All iOS jailbreaks are a result of security vulnerabilities, which Apple tends to fix almost as soon as they're discovered - and ultimately, it's Apple's responsibility to make their sandbox secure, regardless of what's running in it. I also don't see how installing outside apps would make jailbreaks any easier, given that you can already connect your phone to a computer and temporarily install an app on it (and for people who are motivated to jailbreak, this isn't much of a hurdle).
I haven't done enough iOS development to know for sure, but I'm assuming Apple could prevent private API usage by apps through technical means, rather than just app review.
Kind of. They cannot prevent private API used by their frameworks running in the same process as the app (e.g. an app can use an Apple UI widget, for example). Things that apps should generally not be able to do have already started being locked down using entitlements, which prevent third-party apps from using those APIs regardless of whether they can sneak it past review.
> and for people who are motivated to jailbreak, this isn't much of a hurdle
And also because, once you’re jailbroken, you can setup software to automatically resign the app on-device every few days, so you never need a computer again.
I thought jailbreaking worked by using exploits to disable code signing. As in, there’s no need to sign an app. Have things changed the past few years?
Most Jailbreaks today are "tethered" in some way, which means the Jailbreak disappears (to varying degrees†) once the phone is turned off. For Jailbreaks like unc0ver, this means you need to re-run a bootstrap app every time you reboot your phone, in order to return to "Jailbroken" mode and allow unsigned code.
This, of course, is a catch-22. You need to run an app to allow unsigned apps, but that app can't run if it isn't signed.
---
† The community makes a distinction between "tethered", "semi-tethered", and "semi-untethered" jailbreaks. The jailbreak I described above is "semi-untethered". You really couldn't come up with terminology more prone to getting mixed up...
IIRC Apple has the ability to push a blacklist of apps that has slipped through the review, preventing them from running, not just from being installed. To my understanding, they've only ever used it for actual malware though, not for apps that they've pulled from the App Store due to "regular" breaches of the rules.
Apple can just revoke the certificate of developers that sign malware, preventing them from running. They also have the ability to pull apps from your device, but have never used it.
A big part of the value of iPhones and iPads is that you don't have to worry about installing an app that screws up your system and requires a wipe & reinstall.
Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though, nor does it require them to ban other payment methods. Apple should be forced to compete on a level playing field, rather than leveraging their platform to bully other companies into compliance.
> Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though, nor does it require them to ban other payment methods
Epic’s fight, regarding Apple bundling its payment service with its App Store, is orthogonal to the “free device” cause. The former is compelling. The latter is interesting, but it’s an old debate that has never found traction.
> Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though
How do you think that the iOS platform is paid for? Apple's current business model is supported by paying the Apple Tax. If they don't get that tax revenue, they're going to have to either reduce the quality of their platform, or get more revenue somewhere else, like selling my data to advertising companies.
Right now I have a choice to buy a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by hardware sales and appstore taxes, or a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to give up their Apple Tax, I will no longer have that choice.
If Fortnite wanted, they could just make things more expensive on iOS, passing the Apple Tax on to consumers. That's how stores treat sales tax and VAT in different countries; there's no reason app developers can't do the same thing. If users don't like paying more they can go to other platforms; and if users like the iOS platform, they should accept that paying more for apps is part of what makes it possible.
By a small part of that 30% cut, maybe 1% processing fees, a few % on infrastructure and staffing for moderation etc. The rest is profit built on a monopoly which should be regulated.
Perhaps Apple should give the court an accounting of what it costs to run.
The onerous terms forbid (among other things) pricing differently on the app store.
You think 1% is going to pay for the entire development of iOS?
It would be a monopoly if Apple was 80%+ of the phone market; but they're not. If you don't like Apple's business model, there are plenty of other fine phones out there to buy. It's not like Microsoft in the 90's, where they controlled 95% of the desktop market.
> The onerous terms forbid (among other things) pricing differently on the app store.
Didn't know about this; this is onerous, I agree. And I would say forcing price changes for things outside of your dominion should be illegal. (i.e., forcing Fortnite to charge people more who are not buying through the Apple platform is prima facie evidence of an abuse of power.)
No, I think 1% is processing fees, and a few extra percent are required for the infrastructure (storing files for downloads), maybe a few extra percent on top of that for moderation etc. would pay for the app store, not iOS. That still leaves a lot of room in the 30% Apple have given themselves from every transaction as a payment for developers for hosting their apps.
The development of iOS is not funded by the app store, it's funded by iPhone hardware sales, and iOS is necessary for those iPhone sales - that's why they make iOS, not solely as a platform for third party apps.
The app store adds to the value of iOS, and thus the value of iphones, because of all the work put in by third parties. Apple should be thanking these third party developers, not sucking them dry and trying to force competitors in any domain off their store (e.g. the kindle app doesn't allow purchases and can't even link to the Amazon website because Apple wants a 30% cut of every sale).
> The app store adds to the value of iOS, and thus the value of iphones, because of all the work put in by third parties.
But conversely, iOS adds value to every app on the app store -- a lot more value. iOS adds much more value to the Fortnite app than the Fortnite app adds to iOS.
Nobody held a gun to Epic Games' head and forced them to put their app on Apple's app store (or Netflix or Spotify or Kindle). Epic did it because even with the 30% tax, they were going to be making loads more money with their app there than without it. And they are making loads of money with Fortnite. They're just annoyed that Apple is getting so much of it. (And Google too -- they were kicked off Google Play for the same reason.)
Cry me a river. Apple and Google have both created loads of value in developing and maintaining the iOS and Android ecosystems, which Epic wants to take advantage of without paying for. I don't feel bad for them at all.
You’re talking about the competition of hardware sales.
On the iOS hardware platform(s) it competes with nobody. The owner of an iPhone isn’t tossing up between Play or App stores. It’s Apple or nothing. There is no competition for methods to install apps. Both developers and users are completely at the mercy of Apple.
How did you come to the conclusion that wiping and reinstalling is a regular part of android users lives? Or that it requires you be a system admin to use it? Or that you have to worry about many types of malware?
I'm an android user, and I think you have the wrong impression of what android is actually like. Have you ever used one as your primary device for a non-insignificant amount of time?
I'm using Windows, OS X and Linux for 30+ years, didn't have a virus or a malware or anything else.
The last time I had a virus was on my Amiga which I got at a copy party in the Netherlands.
I think it is perfectly fine that you want the security from the Apple store and pay 30% on top for this, but why should I pay those 30%? It's not some kind of insurance that works better the more people take it.
> I'm using Windows, OS X and Linux for 30+ years, didn't have a virus or a malware or anything else.
Sure, neither did I, but Apple also has to provide a secure platform to my dad, my grandparents or any other non-tech-savvy person that will wreak havoc on any fresh Windows installation in record time.
After 20y of Apple with a Mac Cube, XServes, XSANs, first ipod, first ipad, Webcams, Airports, Mac Minis, first iPhone, first MacBookPro, many MacBookPros after that, iPods, iMacs, iMac Pros, iPhones, filling departments with Apple products as CTO in several companies, I no longer buy Apple because since some years they do not care about developers any more - it's no longer the same company as with Steve.
I get that this is a preference, and that this preference makes it a challenge for third parties to maintain profit margins while reaching as many consumers as possible.
So what's the other option? Just don't offer your games at all on a platform like iOS, and people need to own multiple smartphones just to get all the apps and games they want?
> If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window.
Who's to say what constitutes an advantage? From this discussion, half the people here consider it to be an advantage to having the possibility to load whatever they want on their phone, and have control over it.
> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system
I fundamentally disagree and this is also a misrepresentation of the current situation.
If I buy an open operating system which advertises that I can run on it what pleases me then I should have the right to carry out this freedom of choice.
However, if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines (which are also open for me to assess myself) and I buy a product for its benefits doing this, then I have a right as a consumer that the company will stick to this and not be forced to change in order to please some dodgy companies or gaming apps which I honestly couldn't care less.
It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. The packaging says secure, long battery life, high quality phone because of walled garden, so I fucking expect Apple to deliver the walled garden promise so I don't have to do the vetting myself. When I buy an iPhone for my kids or parents, then I pay more for it because of Apple's walled garden, because it means I have to spend less time doing dumb things for them which I'd have to do on another operating system.
> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol.
Though it's not really uncommon to modify a car for autogas or electric. Often it's also possible to change the radio receiver to e.g. one with android car.
I kinda expect the same freedom to modify other products including smartphones.
Jailbreaking voids my warranty, could be impossible, and disables a lot of features (OS security updates). It is unreasonable to compare this with another app store.
That's a good point. Many farmers are as frustrated and stymied as many iphone users. Locked out of repairing a device that their livelihood depends apon.
> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical.
A much more apt analogy would be a Keurig machine that's only designed to take official k-cups, and your legal right to make it work with off-brand k-cups.
This argument works as long as there is healthy competition, so that consumer's preferences get reflected in the offer. If the market is a monopoly or duopoly you could get very undesirable outcomes.
The point is unlike a real monopoly which is due to real entry barriers (e.g. train operators need train tracks, internet companies need cables, phone operators need antennas and satellites, etc.) the mobile OS isn't a monopoly or duopoly. Neither Apple or Android were ever the only mobile OS providers. There was Microsoft over a long period of time, Blackberry, Nokias own operating system and many other smaller ones. Neither Apple or Google have any advantage which Microsoft or Nokia didn't have either in consumer base and market share of mobile phones. Same for Blackberry. The only difference is that consumers have actively rejected the competition because Apple (and Google) exactly delivers what they want.
Now arguing that consumers are disadvantaged because they don't get what they want is falsifying the actual state of the market, when really they get exactly what they want and it's only some bad actors like addictive abusive gaming companies or other dodgy businesses which are doing more harm than help to our society and they want to force Apple or Google into opening more up to allow them even shadier practices.
Nothing stops anyone to create a more open mobile OS. There is no actual barrier to enter like in what real monopolies or duopolies have.
EDIT:
It's also important to remember that Apple hasn't invented their strict walled garden after Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry left the competition. They always had their walled garden as a feature, and that is proof that customers actively chose to use Apple despite having a healthy competition of other open marketplaces, which clearly didn't deliver what consumers wanted. Consumers don't have the time to vet everything themselves. They value Apple's proposition and are even willing to pay more for an app on average than on any other mobile system. People change their phones every 1-2 years and if the walled garden wouldn't appeal to consumers then we'd see everyone have an Android by now for a very long time.
Yes, I say if Apple's walled garden feature doesn't appeal to a user, then don't buy an iPhone.
If Apple was to change how their App Store operates and it stops appealing to the mass, then the mass will react and Apple will see sales drop over time and consumers will migrate to Android. Not the next day, but it would certainly happen like it did for Nokia users, Blackberry users, etc.
However, Apple didn't change their App Store guidelines. Users who bought a phone get exactly what they got on the day of purchase. It's Epic who tries to violate a feature which consumers have purchased and now Epic is suing Apple for having such a feature to begin with. This is not Apple vs. Consumers. This is a gaming company not finding a way to apply their shady practices on the Apple consumer based and they are pissed off. Consumers are happy for it though.
But your kids want Fortnite as a product on their smartphone. They want a customer relationship with Epic Games.
Apple prevents that to a certain degree.
This is not a two-way relationship. It’s three-way. People expect businesses to have a store front in the App Store. If there is none, they don’t think it’s Apple‘s fault.
That’s not an apt comparison because it’s questionable whether what Apple is doing is illegal or not. OTOH, paying below minimum is explicitly illegal.
A better comparison would be hiring people at a maximum of 10 hours a week, and then the employee getting upset they don’t get 11+ hours.
> if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines
Could you please show me such an advertisement? I do not really follow Apple, and have failed to encounter it.
Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition. Don't I also buy the product for those benefits, and don't I have a right as a consumer to opt out of arbitrary limitations that I have no option but accepting?
In the past, you had no option but accepting tracking cookies in every website, GDPR showed that as a society, we decided to force companies to provide an option.
> Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition.
Tough luck my friend. I mean only because you want something unreasonable doesn't make it a right.
Example:
What if I want to buy the engine of a Ferrari but not pay the price for a Ferrari and just have it inside a Volkswagen?
The answer to that is also tough luck. You want a Ferrari engine, well it only comes in a bloody Ferrari so either buy the whole thing and then mod it yourself or tough luck. Same for Apple hardware. If you want just want one piece then you'll have to buy the whole thing and mod it yourself.
Nothing in this world gives you a right to have all your wishes fulfilled by others.
If Ferrari and Volkswagen are only two companies in world and Ferrari disallows changing Radio and Car Seat without authorization from company. I would say screw them, law should prohibit this. If you don't like the law you are free to go sale somewhere else.
If Ferrari and Volkswagen are the only two companies in the world, you just go and build a third company with a unique proposition. There's enough capital around to build a new car maker, the problem is the lack of appealing value and necessity for another clone.
Isn't though the point of software, to be easily transferable from device to device? Otherwise we've just reinvented hardware.
My point is that a car is a complete piece of hardware, all of which is necessary for it to fulfil its purpose, while computers have the advantage (over other machines) to be easily modified by software.
You are correct that my wishes should not affect others, but what about the wishes/needs of multiple people? Even if it's just a wish/personal preference, and not a fundamental property of software, should people's opinion affect private corporations directly?
All of this assuming that there are multiple people who agree with the notion of software freedom.
> You are correct that my wishes should not affect others, but what about the wishes/needs of multiple people?
If people in your neighbourhood wish and need that you mown their lawn regularly for free, would you be happy to consider it? After all, it's multiple people's preference!
There are multiple instances where this is done in all societies. For example taxes are an indirect way to do so. Mandatory military service is another. Jury duty, or staffing vote counting for elections, etc etc
they all are a great example of a violation of the same moral principle, and you are right that taxes are an indirect way of saying "give it to me or else", which is in the same category of "we claim your finite time on this earth so that you pursue our goals instead of your own, and if you refuse we will make sure you will regret it"
> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system.
The thing is, people do have this right on Apple phones; the Library of Congress can designate exemptions from the DMCA and they have done so for jailbreaking smart phones. You have the legal right to jailbreak your phone and install whatever you want; neither Apple nor the Feds can stop you.
Now, whether Apple must make it easy for you to do that is a different question. They actually do, in a way--if you have an Apple developer account you can "side load" whatever you want onto your personal phone. You have to register and pay $99 for that privilege, though. Again--the question is how easy Apple should make it for you to do that.
Anyway, this particular lawsuit is not about Apple devices at all; it's about the contract between Apple and the App Developers in their store. If Epic wins this lawsuit, it might encourage some more developers to list their apps in the App Store, but it will have zero impact on how hard it is for you to freely install whatever software on an Apple phone.
> The jailbreaking of smartphones continued to be legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset." However, the U.S. Copyright office refused to extend this exemption to tablets, such as iPads, arguing that the term "tablets" is broad and ill-defined, and an exemption to this class of devices could have unintended side effects.
Damn, I should have paid attention to that niggling doubt about whether it was wise to cite Wikipedia, but I saw that there were footnotes and I assumed they were still accurate. Thank you for updating the article!
> You could argue about Apple's rights [...] But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS?
Because this is a time and place to call out Apple and Google, the colluding monopolists, for their de facto, if not (yet) proven de jure, criminal behavior, which costs developers, like us, enormous amounts of money.
A call to arms is what we need. It's not a difficult philosophical question. (1) Cut the ridiculous 30% fee, (2) allow other payment processors, (3) allow alternative app installation processes.
What if you take the App Store to an extreme? Say, the App Store is so successful that iPhones and Macs are almost free -- paid for by the lifetime expected amount Apple will make from any and all apps sold on those devices. Would this be bad for the consumer? I feel like this is Apple's perspective: the app store subsidizes devices and helps consumers.
OTOH, the thing about Epic is I think they're incredibly generous with their developers and with their customers. You can play Fortnite for free, and are only charged if you want to buy a vanity item. And if you develop using Unreal Engine, you're only charged if you literally make millions of dollars. I can see being pissed off at Apple for being incredibly rapacious, wrecking their standing with developers, and undermining their own platform. I, for one, will never develop for Apple again after awful experiences with two apps I developed for their store.
Ultimately, IMO Apple is hurting themselves very badly, but I think it might be their right to do so.
One could argue that it would be bad for the consumer since their subsidized divisions have zero incentive to improve. It's nearly impossible to beat a free offering, so no competition will arise. Therefore innovation halts.
This is what Google's been doing for years. In a healthy market we could have incredible email providers, video hosting services, calendars and whatnot.
Prices are signal, they must match the cost of the product. Otherwise the customer can't properly decide whether it's worth it.
Subsidizing phones with app revenue means customers buy phones even though the benefit they gain from them is lower than the cost of the phone. Conversely, they don't buy apps when the benefit would have outweighed the cost.
> Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing?
Yes, I have. You put unnecessary limits on our freedom to agree on certain contracts.
Hence your measures are authoritarian, you try to restrict my freedom. In my opinion it's unethical to restrict people's freedom to make contracts willingly, if it hurts not any third party.
As a consumer, I think apple is doing the right thing, and I totally agree on their terms. We both, Apple and I, agree on what an ipnone is and how it works.
If you don't like it, there is a plethora of other OS: sailfish, mer, postmarket, android, use them.
As for apple, yes it asks for 30% fee, and it builds a walled garden. But they also offer what others don't: 8 years of support. I'm totally agree to have a walled garden (convenient enough for me), if I could use my phone for 8 years instead of 2-3 as in the Android case.
One of the reasons they support their devices for so long is that the earn on the ecosystem. With the laws you propose they would be incentivized to sell more phones supporting them less, turning iphone into another short term phone, like any android one.
Hence you would significantly diminish the choice, hurting me, the consumer.
I have to assume you're not trolling but those are some impressive mental gymnastics my friend.
If Apple allowed sideloading then you're experience would be 100% identical. You would have the freedom to continue using the App Store just like you do today and have a nice curated experience. Contracts would continue to work just like they do today. The thing is, the rest of us would have -more- freedom as we could, optionally and of our own accord, use apps outside of the App Store as well. Nobody is harmed and everyone is happy. Everyone either has the same amount of or more freedom and safety.
>if Apple allowed sideloading then you're experience would be 100% identical
1) Apple allows sideloading, you still can use Cydia, they just don't help you with that.
2) No, because read my post carefully:
> As for apple, yes it asks for 30% fee, and it builds a walled garden. But they also offer what others don't: 8 years of support. I'm totally agree to have a walled garden (convenient enough for me), if I could use my phone for 8 years instead of 2-3 as in the Android case.
Not only does Apple not help you with installing Cydia, they actively prevent you from doing so using technological measures they do not intend for you to bypass.
They are obliged to not add software protections that I cannot bypass because it prevents me from installing whatever software I like even if I do exactly what you just mentioned.
As if "allow sideloading" is just some boolean flag in the iOS source. Enabling it would have seriuos implications for iOS and for Apple (no matter where from a user download some shady app Apple suddenly becomes responsible).
It’s a fuse in the hardware of the device, literally nothing else. You can grab these devices off the black market today if you are so inclined and don’t really bother much for the law.
People should be able to install alternatives. Microsoft was forced some time ago to give people alternatives to built-in apps so why Apple shouldn't. I would also like to see VP9 supported on iOS and alternative web engines in addition to WebKit/Safari!
Good news - VP9 is supported on the next major iOS/tvOS releases.
Alternative web engines are a nice thought, but the reality is that the browser engine cannot be packaged as an "app", it is a new type of application sandboxing environment. Safari (and WebKit and JavaScriptCore) use significant elevated entitlements to be able to do things like control prompts to hardware features like location and NFC, JIT compile code, etc. The reality is that Chrome and Firefox have technical and security limitations which are much harder to overcome than Apple's platform guidelines.
Location access is an entitlement made available to all apps, though. The major roadblock is dynamic-codesigning, which Apple refused to grant to third-party applications.
If you follow Apple's financial reporting, they need to make up for lost revenue from declining iPhone sales growth, and they've stated they will achieve this via service revenue. So if you're in the Apple C-suite right now, why wouldn't you exploit your monopolistic position to impose unpalatable fees such as this 30% cut?
They are trading Apple's reputation in the future (a future in which they will be conveniently uninvolved) for Apple's revenue (and their personal reputations) today. And most Apple shareholders don't care. They'll ride the Apple stock as far as it will go, and then they'll sell as soon as the bottom line begins to reap what is today sown.
Is this not one of the most common refrains among major decision-makers of this era, whether it be business or politics?
In this case, Apple has judged that the consumer doesn't care enough, or doesn't have enough power, to change this calculus. Are they right?
Some ideas that apple could consider and I would like to see:
* 30% fee if app featured by apple or install initiated from app store search
* 20% provision if user landed in app store from direct app store app link
* provide accredited 3rd payment processors (e.g. paypal, stripe). Provide them API and guidelines that they have to comply with. In app store search apps that will go through apple payment processor will have label e.g. 'fulfillment by apple' similar to what amazon uses. Such app would have fee: 15% to apple + x% whatever paypal/stripe will charge. If app installed from direct link and using 3rd party processor then 10% to apple + x% to payment processor
* remove ads inside app store - I consider them unfair or indie devs
* iOS Safari WebView that is not crippled and catches up to latest web standards
(Web Notifiations, Fullscreen API on iOS, Shared Web Workers just to name a few)
I will want a clearly marked difference in brands. One brand can be where the restrictions are associated under a common service. Another brand can be all-you-want-install set of stores.
I have had cases maintaining systems where the common denominator was to reinstall a system.
In the hypothetical scenario where iOS permits active side loading of applications, then there should be, in my opinion, two separate brands. Brand 1: iOS (classic), Brand 2: Generic Brand. Let’s call it Epic mobile brand.
While in principle I want to install any software on any hardware. In practice if an issue comes up on non-iOS brand, let’s call it Epic Mobile OS, the fast solution is to reinstall the OS. I want these to be clearly demarcated , so that I avoid the onslaught of crappy apps in the second category requiring re-installation.
There are options outside iOS/Android. See the Firefox Mobile OS. I do expect these to be successful.
But I will find it harder of what I used to call iOS changes in having non-conforming set of not-vetted applications.
You have both the right and possibility to install whatever software you want on an iPhone and Apple can’t stop you. Many tinkeres play around with this. But that’s not what your actually talking about, you feel that Apple should be forced to make that easy and to support it to the point where it’s as easy as staying in their managed ecosystem, which is something entirely different.
It’s like people complaining that you can’t change the battery in a iPhone and saying that it infringes on their rights, but of cause you can actually replace it, it’s just difficult, not impossible. But Apple will void warranty on diy repairs, but is that really such a bad thing? Why should they psi if I screw up my repair of the product?
Separate hardware and software. If you buy an iPhone, you have the right to put whatever software you want on it. Similarly - Apple can restrict whatever software they provide to you on those devices in return. Future software updates, App store, iCloud etc.
The problem is that a lot of people actually like how hard it is to sideload content onto an iPhone, because it effectively bricks stolen ones, which is a pretty good deterrent.
Android solves this. Out of the box its locked and can not have software sideloaded. You can disable this feature and do whatever you want but to disable it you have to have the phone open. Stolen phones are still bricked because they can't be unlocked and legitimate owners can do whatever they want.
The bootloader is locked so it won't accept unsigned software. Of course it can't be locked to your google account until you sign in. To unlock the bootloader you have to know the screen code or the google account code.
No? My old iPad 2 still works and can download apps from the App Store, albeit many apps don't support the iOS 9 it still has since it's super old. Given that it came with iOS 4, i'm happy with the 5 years of updates it got and how it still works.
Customers do have the right to install whatever they want. Apple just doesn’t have to facilitate making it super easy for them to do that if they don’t think it contributes to the health of the platform & their business model.
I’m having trouble engaging with your comment in good faith when it looks like you’re implying that the ability to access messages I have sent that are sitting locked up in my own device makes it “easier to hack”?
You can always touch & hold a message, & select “Copy” to export an individual message. You can also screen shot your messages, or simply view them in the app.
How does not allowing batch export of sms messages to other apps stop you from accessing them?
That's useful if you want to share a couple of messages with someone else, not if you're looking to archive them. Try finding a message you sent on August 15, 2015, or saving a copy of your messages from 2018–you can't. Again, your tone and choice to pick a strange meaning of the word "access" when it is fairly obvious which definition I am talking about (to the point where you clearly knew what I was saying, since you quoted it) is not welcome.
Saying that one cannot access one’s texts on an iPhone is quite the hyperbole. It would be a bit of a hassle, sure, to locate a text on a specific day if one had many messages in the thread since then. One may have to scroll for quite sometime. I wouldn’t call that blocking access. One can always search for the text based on its content. If one transfers one’s data to one’s new phone, all the texts would transfer as well. So they aren’t deleted by any means, unless one deletes them oneself or gets rid of one’s old device without transferring them.
Batch exporting text messages is an wholly different thing from simply accessing them. The only confusion about the meaning of the word “access” seems to be on your end. You appear to intend it to mean something like “having all the features that I personally want in order to best facilitate the activities I desire to do with the highest priority, disregarding the popular use cases entirely” which frankly is an insane definition of the word “access”, and deserves probably a much harsher tone than it’s been given thus far. The fact that you still appear to be standing by it as a serious definition is even more shocking.
I am using "access" in the same way you might access funds from your bank, which I hope includes the usecase of "I want to withdraw all my money" rather than "I can only take out the last $1000 I put in". I would actually be much more lenient iMessage organized messages better, as many other chat apps do, but it doesn't–I can't search by date, I can't sort attachments by filesize or even given an attachment jump to where it was sent (a big problem if you get sent videos!), if you scroll too far the app scrolls to a crawl, to say nothing of how little you must value your time to want to do that. I am merely frustrated that an app that provides no way of doing fairly common things also blocks people from doing this in any other way, and in doing so effectively does prevent people from accessing their data.
Maybe we will lose some Apple support or risk of hacking / payment issue around those apps. But as long as we are informed about those risks before installing the apps.
iOS App Store is so big like Facebook / Google. If Google / Facebook block something based on similar reasons I would be against them too (also I hate AMP).
BTW you might want to take a look at https://altstore.io/ for sideloading iOS apps. There are some limitations but still better than nothing.
According to the law, a monopoly is not treated like a normal company - they have much less latitude in their actions because a monopoly in one area can easily be used to acquire a monopoly in another area.
This is such a tough issue because you could argue zuckerberg is taking this exact stance when he refuses to moderate harmful content because they’re a “mere platform”. From that perspective you could see Apple as selling you “the whole end to end experience” and therefore taking responsibility for and curating all of it. So what do we want? What’s more evil and harmful? Pure platforms and their obliviousness as to good vs. bad, or curated end to end experiences and their draconian, limiting definitions of good vs. bad? And what’s the middle ground?
It is not tough at all: your hardware and your OS are oblivious of good vs. bad and you want it to be that way. Why not a platform? You want Microsoft to curate your apps? Then why FB to do it for the content you can see? You should make the choices, not others make it for you.
Not so fast. The hardware was mediated to be “safe” in various ways by the manufacturer and regulating bodies. It’s within accepted radiation levels, it’s highly unlikely to explode in your face or set your house on fire when you charge it. And this brings up the crucial thing: it’s because (a) unsafe devices would wreak havoc on society at scale and (b) you wouldn’t be able to/want to do this verification by yourself. You could choose to forego verification, as in “I choose this device safe or unsafe it’s my choice” but overall this is probably reckless as an effect on society, so it’s therefore regulated and your choice is disallowed. Software is in more of a gray area and you could more easily believe you can verify it. But if a piece of software threatened to wreck society, ultimately society will bring it under control. Facebook is incidentally a highly efficient propaganda targeting system that does threaten to enable bad players to wreck societies. I think the correct answer is case by case in a vast gray area between the extremes.
Talking about should is well and good so long as we remember that many things which have been implemented with the intent of helping ended up being very bad
People are perfectly free to use Apple App Store and stay free from viruses and have a nice curated environment. Nothing changes for them if you allow sideloading. The ONLY change is that you have the OPTION to run software Apple doesn't officially sanction. That's just a basic freedom right there and it's hard to see any rational argument against it.
The rational argument is that the ability to side-load applications would be exploited by the nefarious and the clever to take advantage to naive users.
If a website can convince someone to download a "new version of the Flash Player", those same websites will convince someone to "side-load this application to protect against identity theft!"
Android allows sideloading and this doesn't happen (too much) in Android. It's possible to support walled garden by default while giving the user advanced options to sideload, which are difficult but not too difficult to find.
Let‘s take the example of an autonomous car. Would you also argue that you have the right to run any software on it?
Looking a bit further down the line toward a society with more prevalent and powerful AI there will need to be some kind of certification that the software you are running is safe. It will be almost impossible to enforce this without the help of device manufacturers who will be mandated to only run safe software.
I don’t like that there is currently no way to get Apple to reduce its cut due to competitive pressure but mandating a right to run any kind of software people like is very short sighted move that would likely need to be reversed in time if we don’t want to sink into chaos as a society.
What I could imagine as a solution in the long run is a consortium type governing body for the certification of software that is made up of companies, specialists, and government reps. This would allow something like sideloading of approved apps to take place in a controlled way. Question would still be who would pay for this? Do they also take a cut? Do you pay a one time fee? Is it subsidized by taxes? Also could a consortium do this better than the manufacturer itself?
Maybe we end up with sideloading of apps that still need to be approved but for a one time fee rather than a revenue sharing model?
The thing is, an open ecosystem that allows users to run any software they want on their devices already exists, including on Apple devices, in the form of the Web.
And despite all of its flaws it's the most successful software deployment platform the world has ever seen, to the point where even Apple can't afford to not include it on their platforms when we all know they'd rather not, because it's simply too valuable to consumers and would make their devices obsolete if they didn't include it.
There's no central gatekeeper for the web, and sure, it has its dark corners, but it has not devolved into absolute chaos as you so adamantly suggest all such ecosystems would, and continues to deliver such an incredible amount value to consumers and businesses alike.
The web was only possible because it was developed in an era before everybody was using closed down devices where the manufacturer dictates what software you can run on it. And at this rate, if the web ever falls out of favor (and Apple for one is doing everything it can to make sure it does), you can definitely be sure that nothing like it will ever be allowed to exist again.
As a community of founders and makers, I'm sure we can all imagine what a sad world it would be to live in if we had to first convince some platform gatekeeper that our idea is worthwhile and make sure our ideas don't conflict with their interests before being allowed to turn our ideas into reality and deliver them to users, let alone having to pay a cut of our revenues to them for the privilege.
The web doesn't run on its own platform. It does run on browsers, which are controlled by few careful instances. Mobile browsers are subject to the same rules as any other app and most popular browsers are owned by lower level platforms, separated from website/webapp owners. It is not the same as side-loading. Web analogy would work if websites were executable binaries or if browsers were much less restrictive. It is an open ecosystem under a strictest environment ever made. Nobody is going to download your random binary as mindlessly as they tap on a-hrefs.
Following the idea you present, Epic should just start making browser games with in-game purchases just over a credit card. Why doesn't it then? What's wrong with the web that Epic couldn't just publish on playfortnite.com and that'd be it?
By running your products via a browser, you're both handing more control over to Apple via Safari, the platform they'd have to run on (only Apple can create a web browser on iOS remember), and leaving power/performance/features on the table for your competitors (ex: netflix/youtube can only stream lower resolution content via the web vs via their apps).
Thanks for your comment. I want to clarify some things.
> There's no central gatekeeper for the web, and sure, it has its dark corners, but it has not devolved into absolute chaos as you so adamantly suggest all such ecosystems would, and continues to deliver such an incredible amount value to consumers and businesses alike.
I never stated that all open systems would turn into chaos. What I suggested is that systems with unchecked advanced AI capabilities probably will. Technology is changing and old paradigms are not guaranteed to work in the future.
You seem to be looking only at the present and there I find your sentiment somewhat reasonable. However, looking at the future, safety will become much more important. If the software you are deploying has the potential to (unintentionally) kill people, shut down cities, or otherwise wrack havoc because you haven’t completely mastered the art of training machine intelligence in a safe way... you simply don’t want this to be openly sold, same as you don’t want to buy medicine or medical technology from a 5 year old kid you just met on the subway. You also don’t have the right to hurt people to fulfill your desire to make things.
I know what I am referring to requires some looking down the road but we will get there in due time. More regulation is (hopefully) inevitable.
What I still think is open for discussion are the exact terms of such vetting/control. It might very well be that terms will get less onerous. That there will be requirements for gate keepers to implement. However, freedom from control is not going to be the long term solution and this is not a bad thing!
We are just talking about handheld personal computers. I don‘t know why people always try to come up with car comparisons when its really about computers, but: You already can modify your car today, including the (engine) software, but have to make sure it is still street legal. I sure can imagine certifications for autonomous cars and their software. So if you can and want to tinker with it, be prepared to pay for the certification to keep it street legal.
I won‘t argue about the rest of your comment about AI, as I think this leads to discussing castles in the air.
I guess the point is that if we are talking about laws it seems that there is a desire to abstract to broader classes of things that are easily identifiable. I was pretty broad and generalized to technology running programmable software.
If you want to stay with personal computing equipment (whatever that may mean exactly) the point still holds if you look a little bit down the line. You want someone responsible for harm that is created by harmful software and as a user you want an easy way to get save software. Both is much easier with an entity curating and signing vetted software.
What is interesting in this case is the question who would be responsible for this and what are the rules that would need to be followed?
I think it is difficult to untangle the vetting position from manufacturing because the manufacturer is likely the best expert on the computing platform. But other arrangements could be tried out. In terms of rules to follow I am sympathetic to some general rules that vetting should follow but much thought would need to be put into what those rules should be. My prime concern would be safety and minimization of great harm. But how does one go about this? Even external payment providers could be argued to be a potential source of harm if they are not vetted and certified. It‘s tricky!
I think a possible solution would be to make costs and revenue for app stores transparent and stipulate that margins should remain reasonable. Maybe set up a developer board that has a voice in the app store policy making similar to how employee representatives have a seat on the board in many German companies.
I think the line is “does this harm a human who does not consent.” Regulating autonomous vehicles? Apple being able to reject apps that steal user data? Both within reason.
But rejecting simply because it lets someone pay in an alternate manner crosses a line.
While I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of your argument, I believe Apple makes the argument that their payment gateway enforcement is in fact in line with that “does this harm a human who does not consent” test.
The argument goes, if I'm not mistaken, that by enforcing their payment gateway, they're assuring that users aren't handing over credit card info and other PPI in an insecure manner.
Whether you buy that or not is up to you, but this is definitely a defence I've heard.
> The argument goes, if I'm not mistaken, that by enforcing their payment gateway, they're assuring that users aren't handing over credit card info and other PPI in an insecure manner.
Doesn't Apple specifically have a deal with Amazon to ignore the 30% cut for them?
I believe they only consider ‘digital goods’ to be in-app purchases. For instance you can’t buy kindle books or streaming video content through the amazon app(s).
> Would you also argue that you have the right to run any software on it?
Duh, yes. It's like asking if i can drive my (human-driven) car anywhere. Just because it's "technology" doesnt mean all human agency goes out the window.
It seems like you are not thinking things through then. You would at least need to get some kind of certification that your car remains „street legal“. You cannot seriously expect to run any autonomous driving software that you want in your car?
obviously the software should have some guarantees, just like cars have safety standards. But those should not be too strict to stifle competition, nor should companies be allowed to say "it s illegal to modify your car's firmware"
And how would you guarantee that the combination of parts that you are combining are safe? This would mean that there would need to be standards throughout the car.
If all of the construction would be modularized with open interfaces, I could imagine something like this working... So, I must admit that it seems theoretically possible to set something like this up but we are currently nowhere near this. Every car is a black box that only the manufacturer really knows. Same for software. What you demand would require all software modules to be “standardized” (think API with safety requirements and guarantees) so that automatic verification could take place.
But what are appropriate “module” sizes? Do we regulate every function call? Just applications? What if Apple sells the iphone plus software as one application? What are generic rules you could use to decide what is the “right” application to regulate? By what mechanisms can we come to good decisions around this?
It’s an interesting vision... but also totally different from the world we live in today. It’s not as simple as you make it sound.
Apple already has a similar practice in place for desktop apps with Notarization, does it not?
I don’t see how we can’t get to a point where we have something similar for iOS. They can limit the APIs they have access to and the User has the choice.
The question is if all computing platform should be forced to offer this possibility or not. I don‘t think it‘s clear cut and some kind of „vetted“ side loading seems like one possible solution. You would still need to expect to pay Apple for the vetting, though.
My favourite is trying to spin two billion dollar companies fighting over percentages as some “big brother” battle. I don’t remember this part of 1984.
I feel like epic has more to show off soon. Apple rejected facebook, microsoft and google in the last 2 weeks when they were trying to get their game centres approved.
Is Apple really directly competing with Nvidia’s GeForce Now, Microsoft's xCloud, or Google's Stadia?
All of Apple Arcade's games are just mobile games already available in the App store and reviewed individually. The above options are quite a different proposition and Apple's only grievance is they can't review the PC-style game content they are distributing.
It's probably more like Netflix than Apple Arcade, since they are streaming arbitrary content with subscriptions. But games have always been treated different, so again they are not being uniquely targeted.
I would say no. However, you can still buy a game on disk and play that. A big argument on the anti-apple side is that there's no way around the app store, which isn't true for most consoles. It will be soon though, with more consoles losing disk drives.
They're not, really. Both companies have enough money to pay for the best lawyers and keep the case going for as long as it takes. There may be a big valuation difference, but it's a fair fight for that reason. Besides, Epic Games is owned by Tencent, which is worth considerably more than Apple, in terms of market cap.
No, Epic has the money to fight for what they believe, which, like all other modern corporations is getting money, more money, all the money. That's what corporations do. That's all they do.
Some of them are just better at bamboozling schmucks^Wmore naive consumers into becoming their loyal fans and projecting some nobler characteristics onto these corporations, and even identifying with their brand, and becoming an unpaid extension of the corporation's PR department by arguing for them ferociously on online forums.
There is nothing ideological about why Epic is doing this. The merely did their calculations and determined (or at worst made a safe bet) that the money invested in this will cause them to get more money in the long run, regardless of the outcome.
It's the large scale clients that are hurt the most by the 30% cut. Old timer indie devs who used to have to manage payment and distribution themselves, like Jeff Vogel, will tell you that Steam's cut is absolutely fair given the value it brings. On PC there are different platforms competing for Steam, which might be a reason why Valve introduced discount tiers for more successful titles. If an outcome of the PR stunt is that Apple decreases its cut, it will likely be a similar arrangement which does not benefit the small businesses.
The issue with the App Store is not the cut, but that it is the only gate to the iOS walled garden.
Steam provides loads of functionality and APIs to developers that is simply not on Epic's storefront: the best controller API out there, networking/server API infrastructure, achievements, friends-list, group chat/voice, a storefront to help people find games, an extensive patching and versioning system, everything is cross-platform and most windows games automatically work on windows thanks to Proton.
It's good that Steam has competition! And I wish Epic's was competing on features, but at the moment their platform only competes by having a lower cut and payed exclusives only. The only benefit to users has been that Epic funded certain games that would otherwise might not have happened.
I don't buy that, because most developers would roll each of those features on their own if it meant they could reduce the cut.
I get what you're saying, but I think companies monopolising eyeballs then charging you an entry fee is... Kinda bull. Skimming is fine, but I want their margins to be tiny.
December is actually the tenth month. Jan & Feb were added later. It’s the tenth month that was added, though not the tenth month since the start of the year. The array of calendar months was shifted to make room for two additional months at the beginning of the year.
If I have a son, in December, then I have another son the next year in January, which one is my first son?
My tenth son will always be my tenth son. Though his birthday falls 10 months after that of my twelfth son (whose birthday came in the second month of the calendar year in which he was born), my tenth son will always have come out of the womb tenth!
In that case, he would have never been my tenth son, I would have only thought he was. No matter how hard we try, birth order is one of those things that can’t be changed, even with a revelation. Our mental model of it can be corrected, but the order itself is immutable.
Soon we will be told that a century cannot refer to a 100 year period but only a unit of Roman soldiers. The list of words that no longer mean what they once did is very long and it's lame (and wrong) to "correct" people like this.
You've got two "aCkShuAlly" comments in this thread and they're both wrong.
1. The historical origin of "decimate" does not define the English word. Many words have historical origins that differ with their current definitions.
2. The word "fiscal" does not refer only to "taxes" but also to financial matters in general.
I find it odd that in your first point, you seem to argue that only the most popular, most used dictionary definitions shall count as being “correct” and in your second, you seem to argue just the opposite!
By the way, I never the said the guy was wrong to say fiscally. It was sort of a sloppy usage of the word—in my opinion of course. Which I hope its obvious that this is, seeing as its a comment in a forum!
And I’m certainly not wrong to say that fiscally is to do with taxes. I might have been wrong assuming that he or she was looking for a less ambiguous word. I do tend to assume the best in people, and am often wrong.
> "...only the most popular, most used dictionary definitions shall count..."
No, I just understand that words can have multiple definitions and any of them is perfectly valid to use. You were simply wrong to "correct" them in both cases.
Here's what you did:
> "...a comment in a forum"
I think you meant "a comment on a web site" because a forum means an ancient Roman marketplace...see how stupid this game is?
I never corrected anyone, nor called anyone stupid— like you have.
Both comments were tongue in cheek.
Apparently since more explanation is clearly warranted, I’ll provide it.
In the comment about fiscally, I thought it odd that the person appeared to be concerned with whether indie developers, of which I am one, were going to be contributing to government revenues, since I’ve only ever heard fiscally used in a tax context by professionals. And certainly when I approach my financial strategy, taxes are always a consequence of the goal, and not the goal itself.
In the other comment, I was making a joke, which seems to have gone a bit over your head.
By the way, a “web site” is simply the location where an arachnid...
Nah, I didn't call you stupid. I just meant that those kinds of "technically..." comments are lame and so often wrong. And they create boring threads like the one we're in here :-)
Anyway, I think you get my point and hopefully I wasn't too harsh but sorry if I was. Have a good day/night!
Apple must charge some fees so even with a 15% cut there is almost no difference in how much return you get from your app unless you have a high enough sales volume. Indies don't care about the cut because they don't get enough sales in the first place. Indies mostly focus on surviving, not about how to optimize their margin.
It seems likely the purpose was to cause more people to think about the game Fortnite by virtue of the publicity from this.
It seem like something their lawyers pitched to them as “hey if it works, great, you save millions a year on the App Store percentage, and if it doesn’t, hey, at least you’ll get a whole lot of publicity, which should drive your sales up enough to more than compensate for the losses of being off the stores for a bit.”
I think the difference there is that Basecamp really is a small player compared to Apple, and it's bootstrapped. DHH's parade was a little tiring but he at least had a reasonable 'moral leg' to stand on. Epic Games doesn't even come close to that.
I like the parody, but it's not really equivalent.
The original Apple parody was to convince consumers to switch from one platform (PC) to a different platform (Mac).
Now, maybe you believe Apple, in the form of iOS, has become Big Brother. Fine, in that case, Epic should provide its own gaming platform.
But Epic isn't trying to destroy Big Brother here. It still wants to run on Big Brother's platform. It just doesn't want to give up any revenue to do so.
The hardware is not Apple's, it belongs to the owner of the device.
Arguably I think there would be a reasonable anti-trust suit against the OS as well, it's not clear to me why it isn't illegal to utilize their monopoly on their hardware to create a monopoly on the OS running on the device.
This way of viewing things leads to some really silly conclusions. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the iPhone, the premise is intrinsically absurd. By this argument literally any non-commodity product is a "monopoly" of the company that distributes it.
Moreover, what Apple sells isn't hardware, it's hardware with software on it. That's the product. As far as I know there is no official way to buy either iOS or an iPhone that doesn't have iOS installed. Sometimes companies take an opinionated stance on how they distribute their products, like a firearm manufacturer that only manufactures firearms that have a safety. Framing that sort of thing as an antitrust issue is unreasonable.
Monopoly is indeed not technically the right term, but it's not necessarily a monopoly itself that causes antitrust issues, it's the business practices that are enabled by it. A large player in a market that uses business practices to capture and hold more of that market by erecting barriers of entry are definitely sailing into antitrust waters.
In essence, any practice that helps compete in the market by other ways than increasing value to the consumer is suspect. Incidentally, this is a double edges sword, as this is the interpretation of the antitrust laws that has enabled the rise of so many monopoly-like companies in the last few decades. (e.g. Amazon: we're increasing value to customers because we can offer lower prices if we're larger)
> Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading.
That argument would ring less hollow had they done that on the platform that does allow side loading, but they eventually published on the Google Play store.
They do also still allow sideloading on android. Which was actually what their update did on Apple too (you can buy things via apple pay, or directly from us for less money)
Actually they just got banned on android as well, so now they only allow sideloading on android.
> They do also still allow sideloading on android.
My point was, they had the chance and in fact did go completely sideloading on Android, but eventually caved and joined the Play store. Obviously there’s value enough for them to take Google’s 30% cut in the Play store, so why did they do it? Why wasn’t staying sideload only enough, especially when they are arguing they should be able to do it on iOS.
> Which was actually what their update did on Apple too
Sorry, but that’s 100% false. Adding an extra payment option in your app is not the same thing as sideloading and not going through the App Store for publishing and distribution. Apples and Oranges so you speak.
Except it didn't. People wish that this was true, for lots of freedom related reasons. But it's not. The proof is pretty clear in the situation we're seeing now; if you actually controlled your iPhone, you and Epic could decide not to involve Apple. You cannot do that.
Well how do you define how much control is enough? You can still download Fortnite and put it on your device, just through the app store.
If every Tom, Dick and Harry could setup an app store for the iPhone, this doesn't necessarily give me more control. It might mean I am then forced to use the Epic platform for all Epic related products. Now how do I know that Epic have appropriately vetted their application? What if they start producing applications for the iPhone which are terrible?
This is a big problem on the Google store whereby plenty of the apps are rubbish.
They will lose as the TOS clearly indicates the rules and Epic agreed to them. This is basic contract law. Apple has a massive team of experienced lawyers.
The idea that a large platform like iOS can only have apps loaded through a market place controlled by the hardware manufactured is clearly in violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws.
However there's no legal precedent on this because no one with deep enough pockets to fight Apple has been angry enough to do it yet.
Meaning this could be great news for everyone if this goes to court and Apple loses as they should.
I don't think that's true. Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles.
The big differentiator is that phones have become the most frequently used personal computing device for many people, and we expect the freedom to use it how we want.
It seems I had swapped Tengen and Accolade in my memory. I am thinking of Sega v. Accolade.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order and ruled that Accolade's use of reverse engineering to publish Genesis titles was protected under fair use, and that its alleged violation of Sega trademarks was the fault of Sega.
Both of those cases were about whether reverse engineering violates copyright law, they're not really relevant to the antitrust claims Epic is alleging in their lawsuits.
I suspect Apple will argue the oppose. The "freedom" argument has been common in the perennial "iOS v Android" discussions, from which I'd note that iOS appeals to many because it's locked down; it's easy to use and it's not junk. The Play Store was a mess last I remember it. Some consider that freedom, others dislike it. It's a brand perception thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple makes the same point, that an open platform would harm their brand reputation.
Relation between console makers and game studio is too different to directly trigger the same issues (Atlus wouldn’t sue Sony For instance).
But the situation being almost the same, a ruling in one would trigger a tidal wave in the other.
There was a fun moment in last year’s vergecast interview with a lawyer on the App store issue, also related to Epic I think. The case of console stores was brought to the conversation, and the lawyer bailed out of it pretty fast with a “there might be similarities but we need to look deeper before saying anything, let’s put that aside for now” kind of answer.
> Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles.
In general, those console platform owners have been much friendlier to publishers than Apple (and maybe Google) since game publishers generally have much more negotiation power against console platform holders. Nintendo's primary weak point has been lack of 3rd-party games. MS and Sony compete with each other to gain more exclusive offers and they even provide substantial subsidiary to developers. If you want to enforce your own arbitrary rule at the cost of losing CoD, I don't think it's going to be a good trade-off. Creative contents are usually not replaceable and publishers don't really have incentives to attack game platform holders in this dynamic.
The same thing doesn't really apply to App stores since 1. the upfront cost for buying a phone compared to usual apps is much higher (>100x), especially for the premium phone comparable to iPhone, while it's <10x for usual consoles 2. Apple (and Google) also has their own alternative services for many popular apps so hurting competitors by setting arbitrary rules is actually beneficial for them. In short, having a monopolistic status itself is not problematic but exercising it is.
So I'm trying to understand your point here. If a console maker charges 10% of revenue it's OK, but if Apple charges 30% it's illegal? And a court should decide the percentage allowed?
I'm no fan of Apple -- they engage in massive tax avoidance, labor arbitrage, and are just too big for my taste. Same criticism of Google. And Facebook. But you don't go from emotion --> must be illegal. There has to be some reasonable standard you can apply that will make sense across time and across companies/industries. What is that standard?
Perhaps congress should legislate the share of revenue that a platform is allowed to take. Not being ironic; if we are going to regulate this, let's do it with lawmakers instead of courts.
> If a console maker charges 10% of revenue it's OK, but if Apple charges 30% it's illegal?
There no such clear cut on what is acceptable or not. In fact, typically console makers charges much more than 10% but not much companies are complaining about that because it's more negotiable compared to the app store situation. The court may decide how to remedy this, but the decision won't be made simply based on the app store cut but take care of other contexts as well.
The real issue is, Apple has designed their product in order to retain complete control on potential customer facing interactions and is blatantly exercising their market power. The game platforms are usually not in a position to do so. Android might be slightly better but IMO this also needs to be addressed.
> There has to be some reasonable standard you can apply that will make sense across time and across companies/industries. What is that standard?
The existing antitrust framework is already capable of handling this app store situation; even assuming Apple is not a dominant player (which is a very optimistic assumption in favor of Apple; app store is likely a monopoly based on hypothetical monopolist test), tying iPhone, App Store and its payment module already brings significant legal risks. Though it still needs to evolve to address other situations such as Amazon or Google.
> The real issue is, Apple has designed their product in order to retain complete control
How has apple done this in a fundamentally different way from sony? I'm not seeing the difference here, which means I'm not seeing what you consider to be the real issue. Care to elaborate?
> The existing antitrust framework is already capable of handling this app store situation;
I think you are going to be dissapointed. Maybe EU antitrust would adopt more of a philosophical criteria for fairness, but US antitrust is unlikely to side with Epic here.
> US antitrust is unlikely to side with Epic here.
Having done a little digging into the relevant case law I agree with your assessment, US courts have generally been very reluctant to find antitrust violations in aftermarket scenarios where the customer was fully aware of aftermarket limitations before purchasing a product, had the opportunity to buy an alternative product without such limitations, and proceeded to buy the original product anyway.
I think the most likely outcome is Epic's case is dismissed based on failure to establish that "iOS app distribution" is a separate and relevant market for antitrust purposes.
I think everyone is just assuming that Epic will win. I don't think that's the most likely scenario. The US is a very different legal and social environment than it was 30 years ago. More likely it's going to set a precedent that device makers can do exactly the things that Apple is doing, and more than that, they'll become the norm and you can kiss any "open" hardware platforms goodbye.
While I agree with Epic's aim with this lawsuit, one should note that this has no basis in anything except wishes:
> The idea that a large platform like iOS can only have apps loaded through a market place controlled by the hardware manufactured is clearly in violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws.
It may go down that way or not. It is unwise to predict the outcomes of lawsuits of this magnitude. Epic is no small insignificant company with a public defender. Also this suit is probably more of a signal that they mean to have a fight. Epic is not without significant extrajudicial leverage in this situation.
It is likely extremely difficult to win such a suit based on challenging the terms of an agreement that you agreed to repeatedly. Every single change to the TOS for a developer account requires acceptance. I doubt there is any part of this agreement that Apple did not write with this exact circumstance in mind. No matter what Epic challenges based on this argument in the end they will give in and look like fools. Maybe if they are lucky Apple will lower the % by a little. This is not cutting edge law here.
I'm not sure why you feel qualified to comment on the legal aspects on this case based on just a primitive understanding of offer and acceptance (which isn't the point of contention here). You can't have an enforceable contractual term that is illegal, even if both parties have agreed to it. The legal issue is whether Apple's ToS contravenes some aspect of competition law.
IANAL but my understanding of antitrust cases is that voluntary consent to a EULA is indeed a relevant factor in determining market power for antitrust claims. See the discussion in Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC:
> Blizzard raises this argument in its motion, contending that Defendants cannot establish antitrust claims based on its users' voluntary consent to the EULA and TOU. (Mot. Br. 22–23.) Although Blizzard does not argue this point in the market power analysis, the Court finds that this discussion is applicable to whether the market power requirement is established. Blizzard cites Newcal, Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 441 (3d Cir.1997), and Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1201 (N.D.Cal.2008), to show that Defendants cannot base its claims on the aftermarket restrictions. ( See Opp'n Br. 17.) These cases explain that the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from asserting an antitrust claim “resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant” when they purchased the initial tying product.
If I give you a contract stating that you allow me to shoot you in the head, you sign it, and I pull the trigger, I still go to prison for murder. Whether or not you "agreed" to something is irrelevant if the contract cannot be legally enforced, which is what Epic is hoping to prove with this lawsuit.
However, the contract is the only thing which allows Epic to publish in the store. So it is not enough for them to simply get terms they don't like to be declared illegal, they still would have to get the terms they like into the contract.
If Apple changed their stance to "all services and digital goods associated with your app must included in the original purchase price", that might meet the court's requirements for legality but it would leave Epic without their current revenue stream.
If I go to the App Store on my phone, and go to my "Purchased" list, Fortnite is still listed there. I wasn't up to date, and clicking on "update" gives the message:
"Fortnite" No Longer Available. The developer has removed this app from the App Store.
Interesting wording. I wonder if they only have one message for pulled-by-Apple vs pulled-by-dev?
Monopolies lead to stagnation, rising prices, and inferior product quality. Even though Apple is not a monopoly in the strict sense, I think we consumers will benefit from alternative app store - or Apple opening up the platform.
I believe one can still have (moderately) secure ecosystem without it being a walled garden.
If you have an iPhone the Appstore is unquestionably a monopoly. At least Google can make the case you can install other app stores so the monopoly claim is weaker.
Smartphones are not stand alone widgets. They are portals into vast troves of software made by legions of developers. Right now, at least for Apple, their app store is the lone chokepoint between this software and the world. Them taking 30% of every sale between the developers and their users deserves scrutiny. This percentage is not based on the market because there is no market. There is one option. There lies the monopoly.
To spell this out further: There is competition in the smartphone market... but the app store has an artificial monopoly on iOS software distribution which is a separate market serving more than 100 million people.
Hell, from my perspective the app store is part of the competition. I buy i-devices over Android for a few reasons but high on the list is the set of restrictions Apple places on developers, including their payment restrictions. Those aren't harming me, they're giving me one OS where ~ none of my mind ever has to be dedicated to considering a bunch of stuff that it does on other platforms. One platform safe for less-computer-savvy relatives, that also still lets them do basically anything they might want to do and operate independently. That is choice, the fact that I can choose that.
> The mere mention of Google, a perfectly suitable competitor,
A perfectly suitable competitor ... which has exactly the same fees, similar policies and do not seem to have any pressure due to the competition to change them, yeah something does not sound right here.
Alternatively I could compare the number of companies I could use to host my web app (100k+) to the number of companies I could use to host my mobile app (just 2). The lack of competition when you compare that to an healthy market is obvious.
Many industries converge on similar pricing, and that doesn’t make it anti competitive. It may be anti competitive here, but that also may just be the natural price the market is willing to bear.
Google doesn’t make any iOS phones though. You can make it look like there are never monopolies if you choose to only look at certain markets while ignoring others.
You’re doing just that: you’re making everything look like a monopoly by focusing on a single product. Yes, Apple has a “monopoly” on iPhones the same way that Nike has a monopoly on Air Jordans. It’s not a monopoly.
Nobody has really “had their game shut off”. People who have Fortnite installed already are still able to play it indefinitely. Apple could have done this by revoking Epic’s developer certificate, but that hasn’t yet happened.
Epic effectively pulled it themselves when they unilaterally broke their agreement.
I think Apple's cut is egregious but at the same time, they're not a monopoly. My main gripe is that they're behaving as if they're bringing value that the developers are riding on, when in reality nobody would buy iPhones if it weren't for the value that many developers are bringing to the platform, often at no cost to Apple.
Apple has 49-65% of the phone+tablet market in the USA. People keep forgetting it's irrelevant if Android is more popular the world over. Countries only bring anti-monopoly decisions based on their country's market, not the world market.
Further, the market for "smartphones" is not Apple vs Google. It's Apple vs Samsung vs Motorola vs LG vs Sony. Those are smartphone makers. At the 50%+ marketshare, Apple has more than double the market share of it's next biggest competitor.
Further, as pointed out elsewhere you don't have to have a monopoly for being sued for anti-competitive behavior.
> Further, as pointed out elsewhere you don't have to have a monopoly for being sued for anti-competitive behavior.
Conversely, you can have a monopoly and commit abuses and get away with it in the pro-business United States. Microsoft is noticeably intact, despite what we may have wanted to happen in the late 90s.
At this point it’s always important to remember that the DoJ lawsuit against Microsoft was largely about them abusing their market power by including a pre-installed web browser.
In this case, the market came together to produce a solution much better for society than the state could have concocted, or predicted: high quality open source software. We can all be thankful that Netscape’s market for $40 web browsers (actually buggy groupware by that point) wasn’t protected for any longer than it should have been, because the pressure of Microsoft’s dominance drove the market towards demanding more symmetrical rights via entirely new approaches of software development and distribution across desktop applications, server and embedded operating systems and software, and web-based platform-agnostic applications.
> My main gripe is that they're behaving as if they're bringing value that the developers are riding on, when in reality nobody would buy iPhones if it weren't for the value that many developers are bringing to the platform, often at no cost to Apple.
Counterpoint: the consistency, convenience, and safety of the App Store and broader iOS platform is part of why so much money is spent there.
[EDIT] but yes I think their cut should be lower. They are definitely delivering a ton of value to developers, though, and part of that is created precisely by some of the restrictions that developers love to complain about.
> Counterpoint: the consistency, convenience, and safety of the App Store and broader iOS platform is part of why so much money is spent there.
This is a really interesting point. Whether this is the reason or not for me, but I make and sell apps on both platforms and the identical app, identical price sells 4 or 5 to 1 on iOS vs. Android.
The times I've seen numbers on this from the business side, from biz-intel sorts of places (think, Gartner), the figures are crazy-unbalanced in favor of Apple. Way more spending per device (not tens of % more, but an integer multiple more), larger fraction of time spent in apps (as opposed to the browser, or basic phone use like texting or calls), and on top of that way more time using the device period. My guess: some of that's demographics, some of it's how pleasant/usable the OS and device are, some of it's how consistent and safe-feeling the spending-money experience is.
Who else is apple competing with to put apps on iphones? Compared to android where you have indy devs, samsung store, play store, or any other store; it's a clear monopoly.
There isn't an iPhone industry, there's a smartphone industry, and Apple (despite all their profits) only controls a small portion of that business.
Their strategy also adds a lot of consumer value. I use an iPhone specifically because I understand the tradeoffs between freedom and reliability/security, and I go for the reliability/security. Not everyone wants a second job playing sysadmin on their smartphone.
Of course there is. You can argue that it shouldn't be the deciding factor here, but you can't argue it doesn't exist at all.
iOS is basically a geographical region. It's like saying there isn't a California market because it's instead the US market. Or that you can't be considered a monopoly because people can move. Yes, they can, but there's significant burdens to that movement. And it turns out that burden was enough to consider things like utilities to be monopolies. Is the burden on switching between Android & iOS high enough to be considered a barrier to free competition? I'd say yes, it is. As such, iOS is its own market in which Apple is abusing monopoly position.
I can get 3rd party parts for my Ford without issue, and it can be worked on & upgraded by 3rd party shops. There's competition even within the subset of cars from Ford.
That's not the point though. Apple wants 30% regardless of what service you offer. While it's understandable (to a degree) for the app itself, it's not for something you purchase in the app.
Fortnite money has nothing to do with Apple. If they would only charge the processing fee and whatnot there would be no debate. Compare it to paying Apple for subscribing to Netflix/Spotify/Amazon. What is their accomplishment in this case?
I completely agree that Apple's treatment of developers is terrible, and that Apple should be shining their shoes and thanking them for selling Apple's products for them. At the same time I'm happy that Apple is being strict when developers try to skirt the rules, as I appreciate the rigorously-maintained platform. I seriously appreciate the no-BS treatment of subscriptions, because so many services make unsubscribing a complete nightmare. Whenever there's an option, I will take the App Store subscription over anything else.
If it were up to me, Apple would charge more like 3% and keep all other factors the same in terms of strictly shutting down developers who try to skirt the policies.
Would you care if apps could offer two subscription methods, the Apple one with no-BS and the developers' one with a lower price (but potentially shittier experience)?
It's a genuine question, as you thinking about the app store consumer experience.
Personally I like the choice. Pay with cash and get X% off, or use a credit card :)
Not only that, they have the majority of app store purchases.
And there is also the fact that the government doesn't classify a trust[1] by the dictionary definition of monopoly:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
I'd think a more "fair" comparison would be "percent of dollars spent". Since Apple is purposely targeting a higher cost, lower volume segment of the market.
It's a fairly difficult comparison to make though because you have to compare a single companies vertical integration to the non-integrated supply chains of several other companies.
Also, the consumer experience of a single well-maintained, and mostly safe App Store plays a large role in why iPhone users are comfortable spending more money on third party apps.
Anytime the discussion around Apple’s take on subscription revenue comes up there are always comments from people that they wouldn’t even mind paying a premium price just to have the convenience of having all their subscriptions managed in one place, and free of company-specific dark patterns for unsubscribing.
The smartphone industry is a duopoly between iOS and Android, however iOS accounts for a majority of app spending. Their actions are overwhelmingly impactful to developers. If you want to maximize your profits as a developer you design for iOS first.
I think if apple rejects an update, the older version still exists. I could be wrong. What epic would have done after getting rejected for the latest update is pull the whole app. Then the message that appeared is correct. Apple didn't remove the older version of the app but epic
Through iOS devices Apple has created a market of users they are the very protective gatekeeper for.
Windows PC user market. Not locked down. Though MS has a store you have Steam, EGS, GOG, Origin, UBS etc for games alone. Let alone productivity apps.
Android market. Not locked down. Though google play store is the gorilla other stores exist. I like F-Droid.
EPICS Unreal game engine? Doesn't have a locked down market of users. It would lock the business into a payment scheme though.
Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo consoles. I fear they are similar in terms of gatekeepering to users and should be subject to whatever outcome Apple is. They seem a bit more open to begin with though so are likely to be less affected. It also makes them not the prime offender, though offenders all the same.
Ultimately, want to sell to an Apple iOS user? One choice.
Separately then, is this anti-competitive or simply smart business? I'd answer : Why not both? The business wants to make money and until the law steps in, they will do it.
Well, the government used to enforce antitrust laws.
Microsoft got into a huge anti-trust battle over simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. Compare this to the state of iOS, which is in far worse shape - internal APIs that only Apple apps can use, Safari can never be completely removed or replaced, the App store shenanigans, etc. It's a testament to the complete capture of Washington by corporate lobbyists that Apple gets away with it.
> Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo consoles. I fear they are similar in terms of gatekeepering to users and should be subject to whatever outcome Apple is. They seem a bit more open to begin with though so are likely to be less affected.
These firms invented the mode Apple is using. Consoles have sold at a discount and made up the revenue in licensing since the Atari 2600.
The just released $399 iPhone SE could easily be serviceable 10 years from now given Apple’s track record for providing OS and security updates on older devices. Part of the reason that they can do this is that they can realize revenue from some users late in the phones life.
You don’t see this sort of deal happening in the Android world where the incentives are much more aligned towards more frequent hardware purchases and less long term support. It’s good for consumers to have choice not only in hardware, but also in business models.
This is true. I installed two stores for games. Only one autoloads.
And I have a few programs I have bought entirely outside these stores.
This suits me.
And that is the main complaint for a lot of people. The option for users to suit themselves. We can vote with the wallet and go non-apple. But we're allowed to express desires and wishes too.
This is the problem with companies 'forcing' their proprietariness at the expense of interoperability.
Devices have been a lot more usable over the years but there does seem to be quite a lot of deliberateness when it comes to preventing competition, especially so for devices.
In the West, if Apple/Google/Facebook/Twitter decide they don't like something you're doing, you're pretty much off the radar and at a massive disadvantage in whatever market you're in.
Its not just bad UX. Its horrific for privacy. Epic games on windows load a rootkit in to the kernel that starts a boot even while the game is not running.
I was doing Unreal Engine development on an airgapped machine. I was annoyed to find out it requires the Epic store. There's also no offline install option. I hate updating the app each time I run it, only then checking for an update to Unreal Engine.
I also hate having separate apps for different games. I tend to avoid most of the stores even if I want to play those games.
I want to start reading "Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History", which covers the now failed anti-trust system in the United States, but I am worried for my blood pressure, as it covers many other ways in which our government almost exclusively works for its corporate owners.
We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical, but it's only because we got so far away from the reasonable middle ground of big money and citizenry coexisting without f---ing each other over.
> We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical
What has Europe done in the last decade in anti-trust? Vestager brought a series of suits that got overturned by the courts, or charged monopolists peanuts for brazenly violating the law.
To everyone that is supporting Apple's position, let me run this hypothetical by you:
You buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some amount of the purchase price goes to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to you, some goes to Nespresso for actually making the device. Cool. Then you get a pod subscription from Nespresso – let's say there is a touch screen on the coffee machine itself where you enter your details to subscribe. Now, Nespresso ships pods to your house every month. Amazon then says that because the machine was originally bought on Amazon, they are entitled to a 30% cut of that ongoing subscription price, even though the subscription is neither facilitated nor fulfilled by Amazon.
I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous.
This looks like a great analogy, but it isn't. The app is still running on an Apple platform, with updates going through Apple infrastructure. It's a completely different situation.
Don't get me wrong, this statement isn't in support of Apple, I'm just saying that your analogy is bad.
The analogy holds. If I need a replacement part for my Nespresso (app updates) and I order that on Amazon, then Amazon gets their cut for facilitating and fulfilling the delivery of this replacement part. That's reasonable, because you are taking some portion of proceeds from a transaction that you have a hand in.
What is not reasonable is for Apple to take a cut from transactions that do not need to involve them. If Epic sells hats in their own online store and don't use Apple as the payment processor, this costs Apple nothing. No bandwidth costs, no nothing.
If Apple wants to charge Fortnite whatever it costs to distribute Fortnite updates on the App Store + 30% on top as their fee for delivering that service, I am 100% sure Epic would be OK with that.
This is not what they are doing.
---
Here's an extreme hypothetical to illustrate how Apple is using their monopoly position for rent-seeking:
Imagine you have an app that is downloaded 100 times in the App Store. It is not marketed, advertised, other otherwise promoted by Apple.
In total, it costs Apple pennies to provide this service to your customers. You never push an update to the App Store – it is always on version 1.0.0. You are already paying Apple $99 per year for the privilege of your app being in their App Store, so they're pocketing a tidy profit.
Now imagine that you offer a subscription service, which all 100 customers who downloaded your app are paying for. This subscription costs $100 a month.
Apple is not involved in the delivery of this subscription at all (except in the delivery of the original app, which you are already paying $99py for), but Apple wants to take $30,000 a month from you, for something that in total cost them pennies.
If that's not ludicrous rent-seeking, I don't know what is. Obviously this is an extreme, totally made-up example, but the entire point is that it is bad to insert yourself into a transaction where you are not providing any added value – charge at the point where you are involved. Do not use your monopoly position to force yourself into transactions where you really have no business being.
I fail to see how this is a problem, honestly. A part of choosing to distribute to the iPhone platform is making sure all transactions related to the product you distribute go through Apple.
I don't see anybody complaining about Sony taking cuts and requiring transactions go through the PlayStation Network, even though purchasing things for Fortnite there does not in any way, shape or form need to involve the PlayStation Network to be properly facilitated.
If developers want to build out a system to accept microtransactions on their game without going through PSN, I think they should be able to do that too.
I do not think marketplace providers should be able to exert monopolistic pressure on developers that use their marketplace, full stop. I think it's anti-competetive and bad for the entire digital ecosystem as a whole.
I explicitly stated that I wasn't siding with Apple, because I expected exactly this response. Your analogy can be bad without you being wrong in your opinion.
Ok, so to make the analogy near perfect, we need to add in the detail that Amazon doesn't allow Nespresso machines with this touch screen + subscription service to be sold on Amazon at all if Nespresso doesn't use Amazon to process the payment. But that is exactly how Amazon would require a 30% cut for a service they have no hand in. I wouldn't be happy about Amazon saying you can't sell a Nespresso machine with that feature on Amazon. It would be a ridiculous thing to do.
Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing. Apple does not participate in it. If Apple wants to charge Epic for whatever it costs them to distribute Fortnite to users (e.g. bandwidth costs) then power to them.
> Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing
It's important to understand that this definitely isn't true. It probably doesn't cost them (anywhere near) 30%, but fraud, handling upset parents, providing a ubiquitous gift card system, etc etc. does have real operational and monetary cost. It's not just basic payment processing
No, the whole point is that Epic wants to be able to handle payments themselves. Their app, as they submitted it to the App Store, does not have Apple involved in the purchasing of digital currency at all. And Apple is saying there cannot be an app that doesn't have them as the payment provider.
Just like if Amazon said Nespresso couldn't sell a machine on Amazon that doesn't use Amazon as the payment processor when handling pod subscriptions.
It would be even more accurate if Nespresso gave away free machines on amazon that could only heat water, expected Amazon to advertise them, ship them free to prime customers and handle returns and customer support, and also insisted that pods required to do anything with the machine were exclusively available direct from Nespresso.
Though, in the real world of physical goods Amazon also sells generic pods from all sorts of manufacturers, which Nespresso can’t prevent. Yet Epic demands that they are the only company that can sell hats on Fortnite.
Epic isn't demanding anything. Apple's involvement has nothing to do with who can sell hats on Fortnite.
Epic also isn't "expecting" Apple to do all that. Apple does all that as part of paying for an Apple Developer License. If their costs are not being recouped by that, they should charge what it's actually costing them to deliver those services.
They should not be charging 30% on transactions they don't need to have any hand in, and the only reason they can is because they are using their monopoly position to force participants to use them as the payment processor.
The point about hats is where do you draw the line on restricting access to a market? When does Fortnite become a platform that locks out hat designers or is perceived as taking too large of a cut from the hat store?
If Apple did enforce fee-for-service on developer accounts you’d see HN light up in a way that would make this thread look tame in comparison. Consumers benefit massively from free and open source apps getting access to App Store, APNS, Game Center, etc. This makes the platform more valuable for giant companies like Epic.
Perhaps you think sidewalks should be reserved for those who pay property taxes? Or that people should make per-step micropayments? Or tourists and children should require credits to access parks?
> … the only reason …
A statement like this is bound to be false. Ecosystems are complex.
Apps are different from hats. Apps for iOS would exist without the iOS App Store, as evidenced by the fact that people were literally creating apps for iOS before the App Store existed. Hats cannot exist without coordination from Epic.
Sidewalks and parks are a public good... the App Store is not.
Why isn't your landlord getting a cut of those pod sales? I mean they're providing the foundations and the kitchen counter the Nespresso is standing on, without your landlords foundations you wouldn't even be able to plug it in.
But the App Store has free apps where the only revenue is up sell. Fortnite, for example.
Why should Apple be required to expend any resources at all, to facilitate something where they would get literally zero revenue, but the developer would get millions?
One of the biggest hurdles in trying to take antitrust action against Apple, I suspect, will be in proving that App Store policies cause harm to consumers rather than developers. There seem to be HN-favored narratives of "iOS users would rise up against the walled garden if they only understood" and "iOS users are too stupid and sheeplike to understand and rise up," but there is a more prosaic narrative of "iOS users like having one place to go that offers hundreds of thousands applications that are, by the standards of just fifteen years ago, dirt cheap."
Epic is implicitly making the case that consumers are harmed by having to pay $9.99 instead of $7.99 for in-game tchotchkes, but even as someone who's grown pretty skeptical of Apple's approach to the App Store in recent years, that strikes me as a reach. They were manifestly not losing money under the existing pricing agreement, and their fight here sure seems to be "we don't want to share that much revenue with Apple" rather than something akin to Hey's "Apple's revenue share materially harms our business". In-app purchase policies are arguably where Apple's policies are at their worst, but I have serious doubts whether Epic Games is a great standard-bearer to line up behind in a fight for fair business practices.
But the point of business is making money.
Apple has no monopoly in smartphone market. There are many choices.
And if the court will force them to lower prices - will it start forcing price policy on other non-monopoly companies?
The monopoly is not in the smartphone market. It’s about the monopoly behavior within the applications marketplace.
Google can have the argument that you can install different stores in their OS (or even apps directly), and so you’re not locked into the Apps provided by their store. Apple can not make the same argument.
While I'll partly concede that to you - it also is literally the case that Spotify couldn't drop to match Apple Music's prices exactly because or this 30% cut.
I subscribed to Spotify on their website for the same price as Apple Music, and their app works fine on my iPhone. Apple even distributes and delivers updates to the Spotify app on my iPhone for no cost to me or Spotify (well, Spotify does pay $99/a for the privilege).
It sucks to have to open amazon in a browser to buy kindle or audible books, but it’s great to not have to deal with multiple dodgy app stores, or sideloaded data harvesting malware. As a consumer I prefer these sets of trade offs for myself and my family’s pocket devices than the alternative. Why take that choice away?
Simple question to whoever is honestly defending Apple: What if Windows prevented people from installing anything on their computer except from the Microsoft Store. Then Microsoft forced every app to use their payment system and then charged an excessive 30% fee for each transaction. Would you think that's an abusive and illegal practice?
I might be mistaken, but wasn't this the policy Apple had since the beginning of AppStore? Every developer and user knew from the beginning what they are getting into.
With Windows it is different, no? It would be a drastic change to a product, which operated differently at the beginning.
Yes, the fee has been there since the beginning, if you use their payment system.
I think the new and problematic policy is that they now
- forbid you to use other payment systems than their own
- forbid you to just add the 30% to your price on iOS compared to other platforms
- forbid you to mention to the user that they can pay on the company's website or through other channels
Also their own product's don't have to pay the fee. So Apple Music can charge 30% less than Spotify or Spotify can distribute significantly less of the revenue to the artists.
Not on ARM. There you only have a choice between Microsoft store apps or emulated x86 applications. You're not going to use Firefox on Windows on ARM unless you download the x86 version which will perform very poorly.
I don't think it's that clear-cut. Specifically because this is coming from Epic. I've avoided some of the Assassin's Creed games on PC because I don't want to create a Uplay account, app launcher, or whatever. I'll play them on console and I'll probably buy a disc. I'm bummed about games being "X app store exclusive."
It also muddies things like moving to a new phone, parental controls, iCloud save/syncing, and things like refunds or expired subscriptions.
I'm not saying Apple isn't wrong here. I'm just pessimistic about what Epic is pushing for. It's way more in their interest than mine.
It's going to really suck when a normal office computer will need an OS, an "Adobe store" app (just for Photoshop), a "Microsoft store" app (just for Office), and a separate store app/account for any company big enough to push it on their users.
Being able to get root access to your phone just like you do with a normal computer would also be nice.
We are increasingly losing the right to actually control our devices as time goes on, and it scares me. Especially since you can't really DIY this kind of hardware to remove these protections.
It makes me sad to think there's a pretty a good chance of this lawsuit going Apple's way. Even more sad is the fact that many actually support these ever-increasing walled gardens.
If that system preference ever gets added I want Apple to continue selling a version of iPhone that doesn't have it, with no way to enable it and with a promise to never add it in a future update. I consider not being able to sideload software onto an iPhone to be an important feature! I like knowing that if someone malicious with moderate but not extraordinary technical ability gets ahold of my unlocked phone they are limited in their ability to compromise it in a way that persists through a restart. I.e. what any border guard can demand on entering any country I can think of. If I used an Android phone I would destroy it if it left my sight unlocked and I didn't know what had happened while it was away.
I have root access to plenty of hardware devices. I don't need root access to every hardware device I own. What am I going to do with that capability on an iPhone, sideload Fortnite? No thanks, this is the device I use to check my email.
So many of us function as unpaid tech support for various family members. I do everything I can to push them towards iOS largely because the total inability to side load apps saves me time and money.
No dad, not the App Store. The Epic store. It’s an app that you get in the App Store. Download that. Then log on with the Epic account—-no, not that password, the one you use for Epic. Huh. It could be your other credit card? Yeah then you search for Fortnite. Backed up? No it only migrated the apps that were from the App Store...
Fortnite is not really the hill I have seen this battle take place. For example Apple also rejected the satirical app of a Pulitzer winning journalist (it does not make their app good but suggests that the content was probably not just a fart joke).
Still, people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones, without Apple playing walled garden.
It is not good for devs getting squeezed by the platform owners, it is not good for people being able to install whatever they want, and quite frankly it is not good for freedom of speech either.
I am not including Google here since their policy is a bit more defendable, you can sideload apps without too much trouble, I even believe that Epic uses that mechanism to do not have to pay the 30%.
This will cost Epic more money than it will Apple. Either company can end up dragging the legal battle on for years. In the meantime Epic's game won't be available on Apple platforms. By the time that battle is over, the game is probably not popular anymore.
Fortnite grosses hundreds of millions of dollars on the App Store [1]; every dollar spent is a cut Apple counts toward its $10B+ annual gaming revenue numbers [2]. It is not an understatement to say that Fortnite, as a single application, is responsible for single-digit percentages of Apple's gaming revenue (which, while small as a whole, is a TON of money).
This move hurt Apple, full stop. It will likely cost them somewhere in the range of $50-$200M per year. You can quote me Apple's annual revenue, but I know what it is. Fortnite's contribution to it is small, but its probably far, far larger than most people here realize.
Of course, it hurts Epic more on the short term. But, long term, maybe Fortnite gets to come back at a lower rate; maybe they'll get to use their own payment processor; maybe the courts will actually work, and they'll force Apple to allow competing storefronts, which would enable the Epic Games Store to release on iOS, earning huge revenue for Epic.
And what's more: Epic's bread and butter has always been Unreal Engine, which is charged at a rate of 5% of a game's revenue (above $1M I believe, below that its free). Unreal is absolutely used for iOS game development. If Epic can win even a lower rate for all game devs, it amplifies their iOS earnings on Unreal; more money in the devs pockets means more money in Epic's pocket.
Epic's warchest is massive; its not just Fortnite, but also money from Tencent. They have the support of their massive community, including impressionable adolescents. They picked a time just weeks after Tim Cook was torn apart by Congress for allegations of antitrust. They're joining the ranks of Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and every other company that Apple has screwed over with their policies. They can fight this out, and its hard to say what the exact outcome will be, but whatever it is, Apple will not like it. Apple is on the wrong side of history.
Google (and Apple) should have a say in what they sell in their storefronts. Suggesting that they have to carry any application submitted to them, law permitting, is taking the situation too far. Even demanding that applications submitted through the store use their IAP frameworks, at the 30% fee, feels alright to me.
The line is drawn at "is that store the only option". In Google's case, it isn't. Epic, and Android itself, has a road ahead of them getting users into alternative storefronts, but Android has the capability, and I think we're headed in the direction of alternative storefronts being the norm. This is especially true given that Google really does not control the hardware; Samsung has been working with Microsoft a lot lately, and being a Galaxy S20 user, I get a strong feeling that Samsung's relationship with Google is not a happy one.
The difference, of course, is that Android is an open platform and users still have multiple different options of installing Fortnite if they wanted to.
I just re read strategy letter V [1], and combined with your post, I now realize that reducing the 30% fee for developers is essentially making a "complementary good" (publishing on iOS) cheaper for developers. That makes unreal more valuable.
That's what I thought of Fortnite over a year ago, it's proven to have surprising longevity and seems to be rivaled only by Minecraft for capturing the attention of young people.
Honestly Fortnite has been consistently popular for a few years now. I'm betting on it becoming another Minecraft type of game where it could be still popular in 5-10 years from now.
I wouldn't underestimate Epic here. They've already succeeded at securing cross play from xbox and playstation and are strongly motivated to keep their app on iOS.
Given the money at stake, they are also strongly motivated to do it without paying Apple's 30% ransom
I'm tired of this kind of bullshit. I can't buy books on the kindle app, I can't play Apple music on my google mini, I can't install the PAX app for my vape on iOS, and now that. Yet there isn't enough abuse from Apple to make us switch to another platform. Without regulation this situation will never be fixed.
I think they fixed the PAX issue btw. :) might depend on country.
If you can’t get that to work, I was able to side load it but it was a pain in the ass. You need to get an IPA (which you can only get by decrypting the app on a jailbroken device), then you need to bundle it in a shim Xcode app that you sign with a 24 hour certificate and deploy to your device in developer mode.
I like to think that this would be resolved by the market, but if that were the case, why hasn’t It happened. Apple has been acting this way for 12 years. They haven’t changed their tune. The singular real market alternative is android, which still suffers from fragmentation issues. Microsoft, one of the most powerful companies in the world, couldn’t make their option work. Amazon, one of the most powerful companies in the world couldn’t get people onboard with their non-google version of Android. BlackBerry, the most powerful company in the space before Apple couldn’t keep their devices competitive. Palm, the leader before BlackBerry couldn’t make their OS stick.
IMO, this is all quite true and it signals an in-built ceiling in the mobile phone market, which I believe we're closer to reaching than people realize.
Perhaps the market's innovation that solves this walled garden problem will be towards a very different or very new kind of mobile communications product altogether, rather than a mere iteration on the now rather tired smartphone theme.
If any of those products were truly better we would be using them today. I’m not saying apples 30% take isn’t BS, what I am saying is that if enough of us tell Apple to go F themselves, I.e. what FN is doing, they will be forced to change without the government stepping into our lives. It’s basic free-market economics...
That is so perverted on so many levels. Tech is the last real free-market, we need to keep regulation away as much as we can. We are the last bastion of Adam Smiths economy...
I believe in as little government regulation as we need to keep this country from imploding, but just enough to make us the #1 country in the world (w/e that means)
... the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee.
...1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite currency, now costs just $7.99 if you use Epic direct payment instead of the standard Apple payment processing. Normally, that amount of currency costs $9.99. Epic says, in this case, customers keep the extra savings, not the company. That cast the new arrangement as a pro-consumer move instead of a greedy power play.
My math skills aren't the best but it seems like epic is still pocketing almost an extra dollar there than previously (almost 10%), indicating that this is move motivated by financial gain (if not greed). Of course Apple stands out as the bigger case of "highway robbery".
I am somewhat curious on how much apple spends on maintaining the app store and how much of that %30 is net profit.
While it's probably not 10%, the transaction cost will come out of the transaction when processed by Epic. Normally that comes out of the 30% that Apple takes. Either way, the purchaser is saving $2 and the developer gets a larger share; this doesn't seem like a bad thing, especially when the developer is going to be spending a decent amount of cash fighting the App Store monopoly.
I mean, in theory third party payment processors still take a cut. I don't think it's a dollar on a 7 dollar payment. But it's also not marginal.
The credit card companies themselves charge 3.00%+0.10 at the reasonable maximum (or roughly $0.31). That is still not even counting the payment processor's fees (which pay the credit card company's fees for you).
I mean the "7 dollar price" is all artificial anyway, it doesn't really cost Epic anything to make the product of those 7 dollars (it's economic rent extracted from the intellectual property they maintain). Either way Epic is making more money on this move even if the whole extra dollar is fees.
I'd also guess that the Processor/CC Companies likely charge a bit more for this specific 'industry'; Processors and CC Companies often look at the products you are selling and what the overall risk is for things like chargebacks.
This is part of why a lot of mom & pop shops still have a 5 or 10 dollar minimum for card transactions; When I worked at a computer shop in an almost-sketchy neighborhood our minimum fee was Two whole dollars.
Given the frequency of refunds and the like, I'd assume Epic is probably not making much, if anything extra on top of this.
This may actually close a ban-hopping/stalling gap. I've seen people claim that if you do a refund for an App store purchase, the publisher may not even know about the refund for 2-3 months after it was requested/granted. This likely shortens Epic's time to react and ban people for requesting fraudulent refunds.
Even if they did pass the savings to the consumer completely, they would still likely make more money as more people buy it. This effect is much larger than the $1 they gain
Wow, I would have hoped for better support from the HN community. Instead there are apologists after apologists. So what if Epic is big. Really, seriously shouldn't we have had alternative app stores available form the official ones. Why is this even a point of debate? All the time we hear stories of people one of our own getting fucked by these app stores and their lordship and now that we have an opportunity to make some noise, this is the response? Fuck that. Maybe we deserve these lords.
Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Fucking no alternative browser allowed. Fuck that, fuck you apple and fuck you google. Fuck your monopoly and chokehold on the devs.
I'm right with you. This is much worse than what Microsoft got in trouble for many years ago. They know what they're doing in wrong and I sure hope Epic gets their day in court.
It's predatory and anti-consumer. Apple can eat shit.
Both bad. Android may allow side-loading a bit easier than Apple, but the Play store is still a large monopoly on Android. It comes pre-installed on basically every device and is the de-facto way of installing software there. Side loading requires the user to click past a bunch of scary messages that is not required for apps installed through the Play store.
It is much more difficult to distribute apps from outside the original store when compared with desktop platforms. Changing this would be a good thing for users and developers alike, for both Android and iOS.
That's an interesting question.
Couldn't they distribute a "Fortnite loader" through Play store? Since Fortnite is free-to-play, the loader wouldn't charge anything, so it wouldn't technically violate any policy. Seems like an interesting workaround to avoid giving Google the paycut.
But what if you distribute "Fortnite"? Free to play, no premium functionality, free "upgrade" - except that the upgrade is from outside the app store. And once you get it, you can start paying for stuff. I don't think this qualifies as "an app store", since it's not an app store/ you can't download other applications from it (just the premium version of this one).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=3