Thanks. That works for international news reporting. It's a bit thin on local coverage, and anything that is non-news but usually part of a newspaper (opinion/debate, reviews...) isn't there. The easier it is to get the news bit everywhere, the more important the other parts of a newspaper becomes to me.
This is probably not relevant to you, but there is Republik, a Swiss-German online magazine. They extensively link to their sources (see e.g. [1]). There are no ads, no pop-ups, no donation requests, no paywalls, just a (somewhat expensive) paid subscription.
Yea, and it's only an 8 page ruling. Sometimes a news organization is adding value by distilling some dense ruling of hundreds of pages into something digestible, but here, just go read the primary source.
- "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”
- "While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free."
- "The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. However, the showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings."
- "With respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the calculus changes. The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers. The public context in which this injury arises differs significantly: not only has the underlying agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."
> the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative
It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either.
Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem.
Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.
Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can already play Fortnite on your PC. Apple cannot stop you from owning a PC, so Apple cannot stop you from playing Fortnite. Yes, Apple is a gatekeeper for its platform. But we've known this forever. Sony is a gatekeeper for the playstation, and Microsoft is a gatekeeper for the Xbox. If developers want the lowest friction possible when releasing games, use a platform where you can release your own store (which Epic already has).
At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.
There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too.
The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose.
General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does.
Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies.
The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
What if the phone is in the hands of millions of people in the first place because it is full of apps? Didn’t the Mac cede it’s place in PC history because Windows had more software?
I am on board with the internet being common infrastructure, since you cannot own your own fibre cable that goes to the ISP (at least not easily and cheaply).
With hardware it is different. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone. Nobody forced you to buy an Android, Windows, Nokia, whatever phone. Same with laptops. If you want an open platform, buy one. If you want an open OS, install one. Don't buy an iPhone, complain about the platform not being open enough for you, and then demand that all platforms be made common infrastructure so that you're absolved of making decisions about the hardware you use.
Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.
Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though. If anything, it allows other platforms to compete on price. Which is exactly what Android does. Developers can't whinge if people still buy iPhones despite the restrictions on what you can and can't do on it.
The Microsoft case is completely different, in that it favored IE over other browsers based on the APIs the software was allowed access to. Apple allows all apps to access the iOS APIs and uses those same APIs to develop its own apps. Taking a 30% cut of software that Apple distributes on your behalf might be steep, but is certainly not anti-competitive. If you think it costs too much, don't pay it! Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone. If you're lamenting that people are stupid enough to buy hardware they don't have full control over, then that speaks more of human stupidity and the fact that convenience will always win.
> Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though
That is not what the court case is asserting is anti-competitive.
The anti-competitive action is that Apple prevents competing app stores on the platform. Preventing competitors from competing is explicitly the definition of anti-competitive. High prices can be a consequence of anti-competitive behavior but is not really the main issue. The main issue has to do with.... reducing competition by stopping competitors, which Apple definitely does.
Apple doesn't even pretend to claim that it is not preventing competitors, honestly. The question is whether Apple is large enough that anti-competition laws apply to them. (Which they obviously are, given that they now have 52.4% of the phone duopoly, as of last month)
> it allows other platforms to compete on price
No, actually. Competing app stores cannot be put on the iPhone, due to Apple's actions. These competing app stores cannot compete for iPhone users.
> it favored IE
Apple favors its own app store, over competitors, in that it literally prevents other app stores from competing at all on the iPhone.
> Apple allows all apps
No, it does not allow other app stores, no.
> If you think it costs too much, don't pay it!
You should read the lawsuit. The anti-competitive behavior is not the price. This instead had to do with Apple preventing competing app stores.
Also, that is a bad argument, because "just dont use it" is not a valid defense when a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices.
> Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone
Another bad argument. This would not at all be valid if Microsoft used it as an argument regarding software installed on the PC. That argument would be invalid, if microsoft prevented competitors from being installed on PC.
> If you're lamenting
No, I am saying that anti-competitive practices should be stopped.
The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.
Why doesn't Windows take 30% whenever you try to play a game there?
I don't know about legality, but philosophically it's offensive to me that Apple and Google get to be landlords leeching off app developers. I paid for my phone. It should run the software I want it to, and if I want to buy an app for it I shouldn't need to pay Apple for the privilege.
I'm sure they take a cut if you use the Microsoft Store.
You know why Windows runs code not from the Microsoft Store. It's legacy. There wasn't always a Microsoft Store, running executable straight from floppy, CD-ROM or the Internet was the norm. Changing it now would be changing the product people already bought and break workflows.
iPhone never had that legacy. From day 0 it only ran Apple code. Then it ran 3rd party code via the App Store. There was no such legacy. But there are older products with such a legacy. Didn't your old Nintendo have precisely the same rules from day 0 and so do modern consoles?
iOS + Android is at least as big of a deal as Windows was back in the IE vs Netscape days. The bar for antitrust isn't "you literally cannot live without the thing".
Even if you make a case that for Epic it doesn't matter that much, the Hey mail case was another big one: if you try to make a new email service and ignore Apple/Google, you're dead on arrival. That's a problem.
I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions."
This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin.
lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.
> It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue
The merits of the antitrust part are not supposed to be handled in a TRO. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo and limit possibly irreparable damages while the complex issues are debated in court. Here the 30% cut is important because it's a matter of deciding what a reasonable number would be.
In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value after a lengthy court process, but it would not necessarily change the nature of the market / economy. In other antitrust cases, you could have situations where the continued infringement by a near monopolistic entity would indeed qualify for a restraining order as the final judgment would arrive after the smaller competitor would be long dead.
> In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value
No.
The most favourable outcome would be allowing Epic and others who already have their own sales and payment channels to use them alongside the app store payment system.
I think that's the main reason this lawsuit exists. I don't think Epic or Spotify really want to creat their own iOS app store.
Epic (Tim Sweeney) explicitly says that if not for App Store policies, they would launch an alternate App Store on iOS in the set of emails to Tim Cook that Apple submitted to the court:
> 2. A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation
that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as
the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS
App Store experience. [1]
> The updated ADA includes the new Microsoft Store fee structure that delivers up to 95 percent of the revenue back to consumer app developers. To ensure you receive the full 95 percent revenue, be sure to instrument your referring traffic URLs with a CID.
Consider Spotify vs Apple music. If Spotify has to charge X + 30% to subscriber's on iPhone in order to make X then they absolutely can't compete on price if Apple simply charges X.
You're just making things up. Apple has explicit exceptions for multi platform subscriptions. The only condition they require is that developers should not cripple the iOS app by removing the ability to create an account from within the app (which means your app essentially has to offer in app purchases as a valid way of obtaining a subscription).
If users want they can create an account on Mac (or even on iOS Safari) and set up a subscription with lower fees outside the app and then use it inside the app.
People can easily use the Netflix accounts they created on their Mac on iOS with no extra charge.
What's not allowed is making an iOS app where you are shown a login screen but no way of creating an account from within inside the app, which forces you to use a separate platform to create the account. The idea is that an iPhone or iPad should be a standalone device and not require the help of another platform or device to do basic things like create an account.
Can you create a netflix account within the app on iOS? I thought they specifically had an exception for "reader apps" (and Netflix somehow fell in that category).
It's not relevant. The cut taken is not the point. It's that the app store is the only avenue onto an iOS device. EVERY OTHER meaningful computing platform (that is, not solely a gaming device) has multiple avenues to acquire and install software. Not iOS, and that's the issue.
I don't know why I keep expecting users here to understand this. It's not going to happen.
What about Chrome OS? Only some chromebooks have unlocked bootloaders, otherwise there is no way to install new software besides web apps or browser extensions.
Maybe you just play some games and never were a developer but 30% sounds like a huge fee when you literally have no other way to sell than to use dominating platforms of iOS, Android and Steam.
It was only natural that some successful company would start the fight on behalf of everyone else thinking the cut is too high.
For users, it could mean the reduction of price but users are just too satisfied, they don't care what the developers think but be pets on the platforms.
Companies are free to set their own prices. Setting a price that matches your competitor's price is a standard business practice and is not considered price fixing as long as there was no coordination with the competitor.
In other words:
1. If Apple went and talked to Google and Microsoft and they all agreed to set the price to 30%, that would be price fixing.
2. If Apple looked at Microsoft and saw that they had set their price to 30% and decided they wanted to do that too, that is not price fixing.
Android is better, but far from acceptable. Alternative app stores cannot install and update apps in the background. Without root that is – which Google also fights against.
How is that far from acceptable? It's perfectly fine. This battle is not about who has the nicest store. It's about who has the right to a store at all.
Fair point. To be candid, every time I've discussed this, Apple fans quickly jump on the "but what about Google!!!" train, and it distracts from the original point, so I just got used to putting them together, because it's not important (for this specific topic).
"Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist. Indeed, the Court related this action to the Cameron action because there are overlapping questions of facts and law, including substantively similar claims based on the same Apple App Store policies: namely, the 30% fee that Apple takes from developers through each application sale and IAP in the application."
The judge also commented the case is not a slam dunk for either side.
I expect the case is going to hinge on whether or not Epic can successfully convince the judge that the market of "iOS App Distribution" is in fact a valid antitrust market. This is not something that can simply be assumed, as US courts have generally been reluctant to allow antitrust markets to be defined in the context of a single brand's product unless specific circumstances are met. If Epic can't establish "iOS App Distribution" as the relevant market then the court will instead look at Apple's market power in the overall smartphone market, which will make Epic's case more difficult as Apple lacks monopoly power in that market.
>"Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”
To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.
The record already reflects (now) that Apple retaliated against Epic in blocking Unreal Engine. (Granted, the court did not use the word "retaliate" because it was a TRO, not a ruling on the facts; but the implication is clear.) Besides fear of sanctions, why wouldn't they retaliate again, and now harder given that the first attempt at retaliation may be thwarted?
The so-called block of unreal engine came along with a letter asking Epic to put fortnite back in compliance before it would happen.
There’s no indication that apple intended a purely retaliatory action, it was obviously pressure for Epic to come back into compliance with the App Store terms, which is what apple wants - for Epic to follow the same rules as everyone else. Apple makes money with Fortnite on the App Store and getting that 30% cut.
A victory for sanity. Apple threatening developmental licenses and anyone who used the Unreal Engine was nothing short of mafia-esque, and just as obviously Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit against apple.
Yes but Epic still needs those licenses to support those companies and continue to develop the engine. Regardless of the other matter going on, it looks punitive to me. I think when we look back on this event in 5-10 years' time, we'll see this as a serious misstep by Apple.
Yes, I agree with the first half of what you said, which is not was the OP said.
As for the rest, I have seen far too many “this time, Apple is doomed for real” events to agree with your last sentence. Apple could stop selling any device today and still be around in 10 years.
To be clear, I don't think they're doomed, but I think this measure will provide ammunition to those who want to sideload apps and make their own app stores, which is presumably what Epic wants.
I think this has been inevitable for some time, but I think by making this mistake they have they they've accelerated the process and damaged their monopoly far earlier than they had to.
Note: Perhaps I am just seeing what I want to see here. I am hopeful that I and other independent software vendors will be able to avoid their app store one day.
You might be right; in any case we won’t see it for a while.
I think reform of the AppStore is overdue. Some of the rules are counterproductive and with enough of a grey area so that their implementation looks capricious at times. But man, Tim Sweeney is such an arsehole, and Epic’s behaviour is so self-serving...
I think it would have been more self serving for Epic to strike a backroom deal, they've got the clout to do so and it'd probably be better for their shareholders' blood pressure.
On the other hand, if this plays out the way they want, then they get 100% of the income (less overheads) which would be an absolute win for them.
I don't think their motivation matters however - as an ISV getting kicked off the app store is no longer a potential death sentence or a wasted investment; you just need to get smart about how you distribute.
They tried striking a backroom deal first, with a 'and wouldn't it be nice if you gave this to other people as well'.
It didn't seem like any sort of legitimate offer - for one, the "deal" would be that Apple would host fortnite for free, review it for free, and make 0% on in-app purchases. Epic also didn't edit the letter properly and accidentally left an "Android" in rather than changing it to "iOS", so presumably they presented Google with the same offer.
> Tim Sweeney is such an arsehole, and Epic’s behaviour is so self-serving
I have flashbacks of the original iPhone release and the hate it got from established gatekeeping ISPs. "Man, Steve Jobs can be such an arsehole, and Apple's behaviour is so self-serving", but in the end they did the world a favour by pushing back greedy carriers a little bit, forcing them to accept the possibility of distributing largely-untainted smartphones. Kinda the same with iTunes.
Progress is made by unreasonable and often unsympathetic people who are clearly looking after their own self-interest, which ends up actually matching the general interest. I think this is one of those.
Remember when AT&T (“Ma Bell”) was broken up (“Divestiture”) into a bunch of independent companies (regional bells, RBOCs, “Baby Bells”) as Bell Labs spun off into a set of companies? Yeah, the AT&T you see today is actually the largest of those RBOCs (PacBell) that went around and reacquired all of the other RBOCS and changed its name to AT&T (leaving the original AT&T using the name for its continuing backhaul/wholesale operation). Could Apple be forced to divest the App Store and also license other qualified app stores that come along to compete with it? —and that’s just what the courts can do to them. Those koolaide brewers also have drawn the wrath of Congress and angered the Executive Branch by not being so willing to drop a half trillion to setup shop in the desert midwest instead of southeast Asia.
No, it didn't. Verizon is modern Bell Atlantic and also went about buying up RBOCs. Your point is valid, they did just remonopolize, but it's not like AT&T is just AT&T again.
PacBell/Tel had two competitors for the seven dwarfs (RBOCs) that Judge Green created from MaBell, those competitors were GTE and Quest. GTE did pick up Bell Atlantic (and NYNEX) while Quest picked up US West. GTE then merged with Vodafone to become Verizon (and recently bought out Vodafone). Quest became CenturyLink. PacBell simply licensed the retail rights to the original AT&T name.
When the federal government breaks AppStore off of Apple and forces it to compete with qualified independent app stores, they will have learned from that fiasco and probably have language in the settlement (consent decree) that does not allow it to go around buying up the other app stores and eventually change its name back to Apple. Apple without AppStore will be a media company, since hardware sales aren't/can't be enough to sustain growth (unless we find a planet of aliens), especially if we are losing the Chinese market to another cold war.
Incidentally, there is another case precedent: Disney. There is a reason Disney no longer owns Grauman's/Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, its favorite venue --Disney/Paramount lost an antitrust case that prohibited them from owning both the means of production and the manner of distribution (sound familiar?); however, President Trump has recently terminated those 77 year old consent decrees meaning Disney can do what it wants now. Ironically, Disney might become a suitor for Apple's media business if it doesn't workout. For example, NASA and its contractors buy thousands of Macs from Apple but some phat idiot (won't name names) thinks it's a good idea to have an AppleTV+ series about "what if NASA didn't win the space race" wtaf?!
Isn't this still an Epic issue? Basically if Epic delivered their engine to their customers as source code and NOT as a compiled binary couldn't the customers build the engine and include it in their App Store submission? But since Epic is trying to deliver the compiled engine to their customer (signed with their dev keys) thats where the problem comes in?
Epic already does provide source code for the engine. It's on GitHub and access is essentially provided under the terms for shipping any UE based product.
"If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:
- All Apple software, SDKs, APIs, and developer tools"
I made a Mac app a few weeks ago that got to the front page here on HN[1]. It isn't notarized by Apple since I don't want to pay Apple just so I can give my work away for free that fixes something that shouldn't be an issue in their OS in the first place. When users run the app for the first time, they get a warning[2]. For that kind of popup to happen when anyone tries to use anything by Epic would almost certainly dissuade new users a bit. Currently you can run unsigned code on macOS if you disable some security options in preferences but soon that won't be possible[3]. It's already the case that unsigned code can't run on iOS, so for Epic to develop an engine on iOS they must be able to sign their IPA files so they can actually be installed on a testing iOS device which can only be done through Apple.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I also work on a free utility for macOS that I'm not paying $100 each year to release. As a result, macOS treats that app like it's radioactive.
It's a disservice to users who intentionally download the app to improve their experiences, only to find out that the program is a second-class citizen on macOS, and they need to perform a security ritual to use it. If the users don't know what the ritual is, to them, the app is just broken.
I recognize the writing on the wall, though. macOS isn't a platform to hack around on anymore, it's Apple's platform to extract rents from its developers and users. If your app or use case doesn't fit into that ecosystem, that's just too bad.
Yes exactly. From the perspective of the user, macOS treats you fairly. Apple carefully words everything to shift the blame to developers for things like notarization. The message that appears when apps aren't notarized puts the blame on the developer by saying "This software needs to be updated. Contact the developer for more information". To the user who doesn't know any better it's the developer's fault. Apple takes great care to ensure users never blame something that has gone wrong on Apple themselves.
Users get a good experience on macOS and iOS so they will continue buying Apple devices which also leads to more people switching to Apple devices due to pressures of things like iMessage. Meanwhile developers are essentially forced to agree to Apple's terms to access an extremely significant portion of the market (especially when it comes to smart phones). Those terms effectively censor developer criticism by preventing developers from explaining their situation to users. If developers don't comply, their apps will be removed and their development certificates revoked on all Apple platforms. As a user Apple feels fair, as a developer it's painfully obvious that Apple is abusing their market position. Look at what's happening with Floatplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QzHu-sjdB8
Unless things change, I don't think I will choose to purchase an Apple device ever again. But if their market share continues to increase it will be impossible to survive as a developer without releasing for Apple devices and to develop for Apple devices I will be forced to buy their devices. The App Store and everything Apple offers is certainly worth something. Is it worth 30%? Who knows. The market isn't what decided that fee, Apple and all other software storefronts have somehow arrived at that number themselves. With no realistic way for competitors to offer alternative software storefronts on iOS and Android at their own price to compete and bring fees to their true value, we will never know.
How is this any different from Windows? If your code is not signed with an EV code signing certificate, a similar warning will be shown on Windows. The difference is that, that certificate will set you back 500-600 USD a year. Though I believe you can obtain "trusted" status without a cert through people using your software and not reporting it as malware.
Microsoft isn't the only provider of certificates. It's more like the web where there are many authorities, not just one. If Epic were getting their cert from Microsoft and Microsoft retaliated to something Epic did with Fortnite on Xbox by revoking their certificate on Windows, Epic could just switch to a different provider for their EV cert.
The other difference is the message itself. Windows just displays a warning that the software couldn't be checked by smartscreen.[1] Once the app is used by enough people for the app to be in the smartscreen system the warning will disappear. Users will still see that the publisher is "unknown" though.[2] MacOS directs users to contact the developer that the app must be "updated" even if the only issue with the app is that it isn't notarized. A more fair message would be along the lines of "This app has not been notarized by Apple. Only run the application if you trust the source."
Code signing is intended to verify that the app actually came from who you think it came from. If the certificate for MS Word is unknown or something other than Microsoft you know something's not right and it's either been modified by a third party or not MS Word at all. Apple is using code signing to exert control over Epic Games rather than it's intended purpose to verify to MacOS users that their Unreal Engine in fact came from Epic.
You're saying that they breached their contract - he's just saying that the contract may not have been valid in the first place, thus it cannot be enforced/breached. We don't know if their contract was valid, that's up to the court(thats why this article is here).
It's still an incredibly asanine point for a general discussion because it's true of almost any contract. It's ajin to people who constantly use phrases like "in my opinion" in general conversations, it's already implied by context.
One can agree with one side or the other but this is nothing short of Apple using its dominant position to try and hurt Epic because they got mad. It has nothing to do with kicking someone out for breach of the app store rules. Fortnight and Epic's Unreal engine are two entirely different legal entities. As you could have read in the ruling.
And, as you could have read in the ruling, Apple didn't do anything to the other developer account. They merely sent an email response saying that continued action on Epic's part could result in them terminating their contracts and support. So, you're wrong. It has 100% everything to do with kicking someone out for breach of the App Store rules.
Apple never threatened the developmental licenses of anyone using the Unreal Engine. They said they would remove all Epic access to developer program tools (e.g. beta access to operating systems and Xcode) and to partner programs (presumably for advance hardware testing).
This would have a second-hand effect on Epic's ability to provide timely updates to their engine and remain competitive to alternatives like Unreal on the platform. It also would likely lead to a lot of problems with Epic's Game Store on Mac no longer being properly signed.
It was foolish for Apple to retaliate IMO. I think this example will be used in multiple litigations to paint a picture for jury that Apple operates in bad faith and anti-competitively. I am also certain Steve Jobs emails from the eBook trial fiasco will be coming up.
Apple is likely going down if this goes to trial. Their best interests lie in settling before trial but it doesn't seem Epic is looking to settle.
They threatened the supply chain. Would they do that to a normal developer? If you're a developer and one of your apps is found to violate an app store rule does Apple remove not only that app but also all your developer credentials and licenses? I imagine Apple just removes that app do they not?
I was fortunate enough to watch the Zoom of the hearing - the Apple lawyer claimed that in cases of breach, it is normal for Apple to disable all related developer accounts to limit the offender's ability to 'hide' behind alternate accounts.
In this case, the two accounts in question (the one for Fortnite and the one for Unreal engine), while on paper are separate entities, were paid for by the same person, using the same credit card number - so that was Apple's justification for removing both.
As the order shows, the judge still felt it was overreach.
Most developers just get that app removed (unless they egregiously operated in bad faith). If they then sued Apple, you bet they would get their account suspended in the mean-time too.
> Perhaps it's time for some major app makers to have a day or two where they pull their apps.
Epic's actions with Fortnite were effectively this. They were aware Apple would pull the app, but that them doing so would give them clear standing to sue Apple for the contract terms.
For even a lot of "major" app makers though, pulling their apps off iOS in protest would put them out of business. (Even where Android excels in market share, Apple excels in revenue share by a wide margin.) By being a large multiplatform entity with more reliance on consoles and desktops, Epic is one of the few companies that can afford the hit to pick this fight.
If Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, PayPal were all pulled for 2 days at the same time, and then put back up, it would make a huge international stink, global headlines to raise awareness.
Literally Joe Biden would hear about it.
Same day take out an editorial or page-sized ad in the Times.
Apple needs apps as much as apps need them, it just takes enough coordination.
If all those apps pulled their versions down at the same time, Facebook/Paypal/Whatapp could very well wind up in court over antitrust concerns as well.
I agree that a co-ordinated effort could work, however, to cause Apple the maximum amount of brand/financial damage, it should be timed to the release of the new iPhones.
If Spotify, Youtube and Netflix all pulled their apps a day after the release of the next phone, Apple would be in serious trouble that year. It would effectively permanently devalue their phones and by proxy Apple, because consumers wouldn't be able to trust that that it wouldn't happen again. It would certainly spook investors.
Apple freezing developer accounts was out of line but Fortnite was taken off of Google's and Apple's stores because Epic knowingly broke the rules. They introduced "VBUCKS" that bypass in-app purchases.
> and just as obviously Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit against apple.
They can easily roll back their TOS breaking update and the game will be available as early as today. The reality is that they broke the rules so they could sue.
> Not a single other developer using UE was targeted directly by Apple.
But indirectly. If Epic doesn't have a developer license anymore, they cannot reasonably support their clients in implementing UE on any Apple hardware (and, depending on the licensing terms, they may not even legally support it...).
Isn’t that an issue Epic has brought in themselves? Their “Fortnight division” has put at risk their “Unreal Engine division”.
Or put another way, they have two products at different levels of the stack and they have consciously chosen to risk one (the game) to leverage all their customer’s of their other product (Unreal Engine) onto their side in this war.
By contrast, with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the Court finds the opposite result. In this regard, the contracts related to those applications were not breached.
And then:
The court also finds that "Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple."
That's what the judge is ruling is not allowed. There's no basis for it. Apple can't go after an unrelated business because it's having a temper tantrum and feeling spiteful.
The fact that fortnite is built on UE doesn't have any significance here.
They're not going after "unrelated business", though. They cancelled Epic's developer account which is exactly the remediation listed in the agreement for the account. If you violate the terms, your account is suspended. Epic brought this on themselves when they made their move without thinking about how that would affect the rest of their business.
No, they didn't. They responded to Epic threatening to cease assistance for the 2nd arm of Epic if the Fortnite arm refused to comply. Only 1 account was cancelled.
They literally threatened to cancel the second account. This is what the injunction is about, and the judge ruled that Apple can't cancel the second account and prevent Epic from using Mac tools to legally develop Unreal.
You would know this if you read the injunction that is being discussed...
That's not what the judge ruled at all so I'm confused by your statements about reading the injunction. All the judge "ruled" was that Apple needs to maintain the current status quo of their other arrangements until they actually rule on the main cause of the case. If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over. What the judge actually ruled was akin to "You go to that side of the room and you go to the other. Stop hitting each other while I figure out who broke the toy." The judge didn't make any kind of determination on the legality of anything and you can't make a legal judgement on a threat of doing something.
Apple threatened to cancel Epic's second account and cut off Epic from its macOS tools starting Aug 28th; Epic said that unfairly threatened its other lines of businesses and a court should prevent Apple from doing so until the antitrust suit finished (and should also reinstate Fortnite until the suit finished); the judge ruled that Apple cutting off Epic's second account from the Unreal tools before the court case finished was unreasonable and legally prevented it from doing so, but that banning Fortnite was not unreasonable and did not legally prevent it from doing so.
Judges make legal decisions. If a judge says you can't do something, that means it's illegal; judges can rule whether a future action is illegal, including based on a threat, and that's what this injunction does. This injunction references Apple's threat and, ultimately, says that they legally can't do it (for now), just as Epic can't legally force Apple to reinstate Fortnite (for now).
But anyway, as to your original assertion that this injunction is unrelated to Apple's threat to terminate Epic's account with the Apple Developer Program, here's a direct quote from the injunction:
"THEREFORE, APPLE AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH APPLE, ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from taking adverse action against Epic Games with respect to restricting, suspending or terminating any affiliate of Epic Games, such as Epic International, from Apple’s Developer Program [italics mine]"
Also, re: your assertion that "If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over." — I don't think anyone involved in the antitrust case, including the judge, ruled or believes anything like "the matter is over" and "the status quo is maintained" if Apple is found to be violating antitrust law. The status quo legally could not be maintained by Apple in that case. What exactly Apple would have to do would depend on what precisely the judge ruled, but maintaining the status quo would not be an option.
I mean you can read the court ruling for yourself. The court disagrees with you there for reasons specified. The court does rule that "Epic brought this on themselves" for the Fortnite app on iOS but not for Apple restricting its SDK for Unreal Engine.
No, they didn't. The court ruled in a way to minimize the calculation of damages. Apple may still be able to continue doing what they intended and revoke that partnership but the judge just ruled that they need to keep operating as they have until this is settled so that they don't have to factor in the potential liabilities of both points.
Epic knowingly, intentionally, and publicly defied Apple's rules. In response Apple "threatened" exactly what they threaten every single other company doing the same -- to suspend or terminate your developer accounts if you don't remediate the issue. There is absolutely a basis for it, it certainly isn't "unrelated", and trying to attribute motives like spite or having a "temper tantrum" is baseless nonsense.
The court has blocked it because there could be greater harm in the short term (although that is grossly overblown -- the UE wouldn't stop working in the short or even medium term), but don't be confused into thinking this isn't a completely rote, normal response.
>The fact that fortnite is built on UE doesn't have any significance here.
You understand that Fortnite and UE are made by the same company, right? The canard that it has anything to do with what engine Fortnite uses is absurd noise.
Wow, this site has completely given into the cult of Apple. Thankfully the judge is a reasonable person who is interested in actual harms more than the letter of a TOS.
That's not true. Epic which developers Fortnite isn't the same holding company which developers UE. If Epic's game developers accounts are closed it should have no affect to the Epic accounts for UE.
* Epic Games, Inc. develops Fortnite and has an Apple developer account that it is released under.
* Epic Games International, S.a.r.l. develops Unreal Engine and holds its own Apple developer account.
So if the accounts of Epic Games, Inc. were closed, who cares. If Epic Games International's accounts were closed, then yes that's wrong of Apple to do.
This is a quote from the letter that Apple sent to Epic;
"If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and
your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the
following programs, technologies, and capabilities:"
[...]
"- Engineering efforts to improve hardware and software performance of Unreal Engine
on Mac and iOS hardware; optimize Unreal Engine on the Mac for creative workflows,
virtual sets and their CI/Build Systems; and adoption and support of ARKit features and
future VR features into Unreal Engine by their XR team"
That is a statement that Apple made saying they will stop all help they give to Epic getting UE running on all Apple hardware. With the other stuff in the letter it makes it very clear that the problem is not just one for Epic Games, but all of Epic.
Not just Epic. Apple do. If you think Epic Games and Epic International are wholly separate then telling Epic Games "Engineering efforts to improve hardware and software performance of Unreal Engine on Mac and iOS hardware;" would make no sense. It's very clear that Apple are threatening to do things that impact all of Epic in that letter.
What's less clear is whether or not Apple would have actually revoked Epic International's developer accounts. You might like to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, but it's ambiguous enough for a court to issue a ruling that Apple aren't allowed to do that. This is obviously not just Epic catastrophizing if the court agreed with them and ruled in their favor on that part.
Common sense ties them together. While the Fortnite app was in violation of terms, it wasn’t the app itself which violated the terms—it was the corporation.
The problem is that the US judicial system, thanks to its focus on precedent cases no matter how old they are, and "modern common sense" don't always fit together.
> While the Fortnite app was in violation of terms, it wasn’t the app itself which violated the terms—it was the corporation.
Definitely not. If you have multiple apps in the App Store, and one is removed for violating the terms, the rest should not be removed, since the others didn’t violate those terms.
But it is effectively the same company though; controlled by the same principals.
That would be like Google in Mountain View claiming that they don't avoid paying tax and they are the good guys, but Google SA Netherlands & Ireland who are the assholes who scam countries out of their share of tax revenue (The Dutch Irish sandwich tax loophole that they use).
OK, but please don't post a personal attack with zero information. Instead, post information with zero personal attack. Then the rest of can learn something. The problem with berating someone for being ignorant—even if they are ignorant—is that it poisons the commons. (Edit: besides, of course, it not being nice.)
Apologies. The injunction ended up passing such that the tooling was not in fact revoked by Apple.
Epic relies heavily on deploying Fortnite in order to test the Unreal Engine at scale. Fortnite itself is, in some sense, the test bed from which many improvements and fixes are carried back to the mainline engine. Any studio or publisher relying on the Unreal Engine to deploy to iOS or MacOS would be more or less immediately effected, especially given the volatility of Apple's APIs.
Sure. It's honestly not even a stretch. Any studio that depends on UE4 to deploy to Apple hardware would have been affected if the injunction did not go through. If Epic doesn't have access to tools for UE4 or even just Fortnite (which is used to test UE4 in the wild), that means we have to spin up an internal team dedicated to the maintenance of iOS/MacOS features. People underestimate just how vast the surface area is for a game engine interoperating with the platform, and all features currently in progress would need to be manually ported/tested (file i/o, rendering, audio, networking, changes to the store API, notifications, etc). It's monumental and for many studios, not something anyone budgeted for.
Huh, Apple said it would disable Epic's developer accounts? They never threatened anyone using Unreal Engine, and I don't believe they specified UE Developer accounts.
We can only speculate that UE Developer accounts would have been terminated as we don't really know if Apple was going to terminate those too as they belong to a separate company according to the court documents.
Come on. “We’ll remove your license if you keep misbehaving” is in no way similar to “we’ll go after your users and remove their license”.
It’s a threat in the long term, if Epic and Apple cannot negotiate something satisfying (which they will eventually, there’s just too much to lose for both of them), but let’s keep some perspective.
It's a chain of events. If Epic can't develop on iOS or MacOS, they can't continue to work on Unreal, which makes it effectively an abandoned product for others. Yes, they can still use it, but it would be basically EOL. That was the point in threatening to revoke Epic's license to develop on the platform, and the danger in the increasing monoculture inside Apple. You can only use these specific ordained tools, and they control access to the tools.
I don’t disagree with you, but again, they are not taking away anyone’s license apart from Epic’s. This is a fact, and there is no way around it. Taking away Epic’s license will have effects on other developers, but this is not the same as revoking their licenses.
The OP was not about a constructive discussion of the consequences of that, it was about Apple going after other developers. Which is factually wrong.
Taking away and revoking are the same. The legal work is revoke, they're revoking Epic's license to use MacOS and iOS development tools. That was beyond the scope of the violation, which was an App Store rule violation. The goal of that move was to prevent Epic from even developing non-App Store content, which I don't think anyone could not foresee it affecting other developers, which I'm fairly sure was the intent. I think they overstepped their contractual recourse for the intent of trying to force epic back to the table, because Epic wouldn't want to lose all their iOS customers.
> Taking away and revoking are the same. The legal work is revoke, they're revoking Epic's license to use MacOS and iOS development tools.
Sorry, my sentence was poorly worded. They threatened to revoke Epic’s license, not the other developers’ (which, again, is what the OP claimed and is specifically what I disputed).
I think they did go overboard with the intent to push Epic to settle, yes. And Epic were ready for a mud fight and called their bluff. It looks like the move was a warning, though, and I don’t think they really would do it, at least not for long: they know how important the Unreal Engine is for the platform. If an agreement is found quickly, the impact on others developers is nil. At least in the short term; this brings trust issues over the longer term.
They threatened to effectively revoke other developers licenses. Its plainly clear that if Apple blocks Epic from being able to continue to work on UE for iOS and macOS, they would affect other developers that are currently using Unreal Engine and have not breached Apple's terms. While Apple was not threatening to directly revoke those developers license, the net effect would have been equivalent. This is why the court ruled that Apple cannot currently do this. It's not necessarily because Apple is actually doing something wrong, but because during this litigation, such actions which may not be directly pertinent to the litigation, may have negative effects on unrelated parties.
The court isn't saying Apple is wrong for threatening to block Epic fully, including UE. The court is saying that doing say _may_ not be legal and thus Apple should hold off on it until the court has had time to deliberate the issue. It is only prudent of the court to work to reduce the variables in this situation and to prevent potential harm to innocent parties.
If Apple does not allow Epic to develop Unreal Engine, and Unreal Engine 5 is subsequently not released for Apple computers, that feels like a substantial "threat to anyone using it" to me.
The effects are similar. iOS 14 will be out soon. Epic needs to prepare Unreal Engine to be compatible with it. How can they do this without any developer tools?
No, the effects are not similar. If Apple removed the developers’ licenses, they could not put anything on the AppStore. If an update to the Unreal Engine gets delayed (I have no doubt it will be resolved at some point), then the current version keeps working on the OS on which it was tested, and the developer’s other applications can still be bought.
Now if only the courts would apply the same "sanity" to, say, Uber threatening to fire all its drivers if they're subject to regulation. Not just in california, it's been a repeated thing, they used their employees as leverage when they were threatening to take their ball and go home if Dallas made them do background checks too.
The sad part is that Epic's tactics are nothing out of the ordinary for these silicon valley giants, they love using innocent parties as emotional leverage in a fight to pad their profit margins by another couple percent.
> Uber threatening to fire all its drivers if they're subject to regulation.
Do you mean Uber threating not to hire all it's drivers? Right not they're not employees and they all have become them that's a very different process.
What exactly is sane about figuring out how to make 200,000 contractors full-time employees inside of a week? I don't think there's a company in the world that could pull that off.
If a company says, "hey, we're a marketplace" and a court says, "actually, you're not" then the company has to figure out how to adapt. There's change and an emotional toll to the drivers in that scenario whether they become employees or not.
> What exactly is sane about figuring out how to make 200,000 contractors full-time employees
There is no requirement for them to be made full-time employees, just employees, and even if the law was unclear before the Dynamex decision, they've had the requirement under that decision for almost 2.5 years. And they've known about it, because they've been actively lobbying to change it, lobbying for Dynamex to be legislatively reversed, lobbying for an exception when it was clear that instead of reversing it the legislature planned to codify it in AB5 and also lobbying against AB5, and finally funding a ballot referendum to repeal AB5. All of that says that they understood the rule, and how it applied to them, for quite a long time.
California Assembly Bill 5 was signed into law last September and was clearly a "Going to Happen" event for at least a year prior.
There's no surprise here. Uber had plenty of time to figure out how to deal with this. And they did: they aren't dummies, this was their plan. Their considered decision was that it was in the best interests of their shareholders to play brinksmanship games with their employees' livelihoods instead of make a good faith effort to comply with state law.
Rulebreaking is, after all, part of the corporate culture at Uber, and it always has been.
> California Assembly Bill 5 was signed into law last September and was clearly a "Going to Happen" event for at least a year prior.
And, on top of that, merely (as relevant to Uber and Lyft; it also added some exceptions that aren't relevant to them) codified the rule the California Supreme Court handed down in Dynamex on April 30, 2018; so the “one week” is off by about 121 weeks or so.
If Uber shareholders thought that they were walking away from all revenue in the state of California their shares would tank. We all know this is brinksmanship. I know it. You know it. They aren't leaving CA. The goal here is to get the "other side" to blink and adjust the rules so they can continue to operate. But at the end of the day Uber isn't abandoning the California ride share market to its competitors. Be real.
Uber is using their weight to get what they want, because they know we want them to continue offering service. This is actually quite a bit like having a raise negotiation at work. I don't see their goals as evil, either, simply at odds with the state.
Their shareholders likely suspect California will capitulate. Though it is hard to do research over whether their drivers actually want this, generally the information I see indicates they'd prefer to remain contractors. Yes, some of this is paid for by Uber. I imagine some of the content I read was also paid for by the opposition. But it seems like no matter how you cut it, the drivers generally want to remain contractors, and definitely do not want ~their livelihood~ an income source threatened either way in the midst of a pandemic.
It’s still a negotiation tactic. Would shareholders be happy if the entire business model changed? There are other freelancers that aren’t happy with the laws.
In the sentence to which I replied, the antecedent to "that" (in "That’s a perfectly logical thing to do") was not "negotiating" it was "leaving the state".
I genuinely can't follow your point. These goalposts are moving too fast, sorry.
And now because of the laws making freelance harder, truck drivers who want to stay freelance are having to move out of California and some writers who are doing freelance writing are also finding it difficult.
Companies shouldn’t be in the position of offering “benefits” to employees. No sane first world company ties health insurance to your employer.
Companies shouldn’t be in the position of offering “benefits” to employees. No sane first world company ties health insurance to your employer.
It's inexplicable to me that both employers and employees seem mostly fine with the current insanity. Do business owners enjoy having to be health insurance brokers? Do employees enjoy having their insurance provider change every few years and having very little choice in policies?
unfortunately any time anyone brings up medicare for all there's a huge pushback from half the country, so yes, people do mostly "like their current insurance" in practice. Or at least like it enough to not want to change the system.
(and no, "just have everybody buy their own policy" is not a realistic answer, virtually every society addresses this on a public policy level because individual purchasers simply don't work well.)
So, if you want your weird gig economy "independent contractor" nonsense, push for medicare for all, it's pretty much that simple. That's the only way having wage slaves be independent contractors isn't going to result in an immediate and massive drop in the quality and availability of health care. But oops lolbertarians don't like that either, they just want to be able to pay someone $0.50 per hour because "free markets are better".
I’m actually also against raising the minimum wage for the same reason. Businesses shouldn’t be responsible for providing a “livable wage”. A livable wage for my son staying at home isn’t the same as a single mom with three. The company should only be responsible for following the law and paying people what the market demands and paying taxes. Both the tax laws need to be changed to make sure that all companies pay “enough” and the Earned Income Tax Credit needs to be increased and easier to get throughout the year.
Until the current administration, both Republicans and Democrats supported increasing the EITC.
Because it does not matter to the vast majority of people. In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper.
There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with warranty issues.
Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles? Tesla is fighting this one now where people are paying a third party to boost their horsepower.
Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities
Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?
I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy, because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.
I am thankful every time I drive that I'm able to run software of my choice in my automobile. Mazda never seemed to get around to adding Android Auto to my 2015, and yet I use it whenever I feel like, and I didn't have to pay a dealer $300 to install software!
Yeah, people flash their ECMs all the time. I don't really see how using 3rd party software to boost power in a Tesla is all that different. Just don't cover any damage caused by the tinkering under warranty. Tesla just seems salty that they're missing out on their "DLC" profits.
> There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them
To be fair, that's only for lack of skills (not blaming people for not having them, but it's the main reason)
I can flash most of my devices with the software I want, my cousin is a rally driver and he hacks into cars ECUs all the times, they are not locked by design, you need the tools and the expertise though
> Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded.
Not if the are android TVs, you can still side load apps.
Anyway they still work as normal TVs if you completely ignore the "smart" part, iOS devices don't work if you don't authenticate on Apple servers
> Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?
Tons of photos, videos and private informations are leaked everyday from iPhones
It is a false sense of security
> because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.
But it could be because it's breaking some law
In Italy ISPs are forced to let you chose between the ISP bundled modem or the one you buy and release all the information you need to make it work on their networks
I don't think this is really analogous here. The App Store's monopoly on distribution != iOS app sandboxing, the later of which all apps distributed through non jailbroken means (including AltStore) abide by. The later is what protects iOS more than the former.
> Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles?
Obviously yes.
> Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities
It's because of DRM. Nothing here benefits the customer.
> Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted?
You, the owner, of course.
> Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?
Like on Android?
> I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy
You don't. That's the whole point of walled gardens, taking that choice away from you.
> In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper.
Just like people "love relevant ads" that Google provides People never love gatekeepers or ads. They love secure smartphones and relevant web search results. Users enjoy the benefits a gatekeeper can provide, but they would be just as happy to get the benefits without the downsides.
It was reasonable for Apple to use gatekeeping at first. It was simple and workable. But after more than a decade, they should have something a lot better.
Like app sandboxing and web technology-based apps that can be installed from outside the App Store while maintaining the integrity of your device.
Apple is no longer acting in their users best interests, they're acting in their own. And they're exploiting their market share to do so, in an extremely anti-competitive way.
In the short-term it's a cash grab for Apple and in the long-term its a poison that will eat at the company's foundation. They should even the playing field and compete on it as they do so well.
What corporation acts solely in the best interest of the consumer? Epic isn't, certainly, with games that are profitable off addictive microtransacations to children. Additionally, they make the argument that they can reduce the processing fee by ~20% but offered consumers a cost reduction of somewhere like ~11%. They're acting in their own best interest.
> where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer.
My two reasons:
1. I bought cellphones before the iPhone. This is nothing new.
2. I don't need everything to run on my phone. The amount of things I can't run on my phone, but wish I could is incredibly tiny, compared to the perceived additional utility my iphone gives me compared to my last Android or dumbphone.
Moreover, I also own a Nintendo Switch and am considering buying a Playstation. I think as a consumer, I am not alone in accepting that certain devices will only run manufacturer approved software.
Why? Because having Apple in control of the device is valuable to me. VERY valuable. It's the big reason why I willingly pay more for Apple phones. If I wanted control over my phone, I don't need to "demand" it. I would have simply bought a different product.
Meanwhile, I already have plenty of devices that I have control over.
That's like asking why not insist that your Tesla Model 3 has a diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders. Not everyone buys things for the same reasons.
> Why? Because having Apple in control of the device is valuable to me. VERY valuable. It's the big reason why I willingly pay more for Apple phones.
You can give Apple initial (and practically temporary if you do not want to take it back) control over the device without actually forcing everyone else to do the same.
> I would have simply bought a different product.
What if you liked everything Apple does except the part about not allowing you to install 3rd party applications?
> That's like asking why...
As i wrote in other posts, these comparisons 99.9% of the time miss important details so they're not helpful. E.g...
> ... diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders.
...these having nothing to do with iOS allowing users to install applications from outside the App Store.
I want Android to have stricter control of their Apps that are released in their native appstore. I also want the manufacturer to have complete control so much that I never need to have an anti-virus. Scratch all that, I demand it. How come I cannot get this?
Wait a second, why is there all this bloatware on my phone after I turned it on for the first time? How do I get rid of it? Is it really gone even though it says I deleted it? Why do I need to go on a rabbit hunt in deep tech forums to make sure of that? Why is everyone saying to "just" root your phone to take control over it? Why does this tracking feature turn back on after updates? Why do I get the uncertain feeling that this free antivirus program should be run through a separate antivirus program?... etc. x100 other questions I have. I really don't care to have any of them answered, because I have the option not to.
Instead of demanding all this or asking much of these questions, I have the choice to buy an iPhone. I understand the (great) possibilities that I'm giving up in return, and I'm very good with that. I like this choice. I buy an iPhone for what it can't do. This next sentence sums it all up: it's important to understand that an Android can't do what an iPhone by purposeful design can't do.
> I want Android to have stricter control of their Apps that are released in their native appstore.
Google could have this without having Android itself disallow 3rd party applications.
> I also want the manufacturer to have complete control so much that I never need to have an anti-virus. Scratch all that, I demand it. How come I cannot get this?
If you are afraid of viruses on your phone you can avoid that by using only applications from reputable sources (like the aforementioned app store). You do not need to lock down the device for everyone else just because you are afraid.
> Wait a second, why is there all this bloatware on my phone after I turned it on for the first time? How do I get rid of it? Is it really gone even though it says I deleted it? Why do I need to go on a rabbit hunt in deep tech forums to make sure of that?
What does all of this have to do with Android allowing 3rd party applications? All that is up to your device manufacturer.
> Why is everyone saying to "just" root your phone to take control over it?
Because sadly not even Android provides the ability to 100% unlock it out of the box for all devices.
> Why does this tracking feature turn back on after updates? Why do I get the uncertain feeling that this free antivirus program should be run through a separate antivirus program?... etc. x100 other questions I have. I really don't care to have any of them answered, because I have the option not to.
Note that you do not have an option here, the ability to not be able to answer any of those are forced on you by Apple - Apple never gave you any option outside not using their phones, but you cannot both use their phones (because you actually like them) and be able to install 3rd party applications.
> Instead of demanding all this or asking much of these questions, I have the choice to buy an iPhone. I understand the (great) possibilities that I'm giving up in return, and I'm very good with that. I like this choice.
What i refer to in my comments isn't the choice about what sort of device you can buy, what i refer to is being in control of your device after you bought it. Of course you can choose to not buy an Apple device, but after buying it you lose any form of control over your own device.
> what i refer to is being in control of your device after you bought it. Of course you can choose to not buy an Apple device, but after buying it you lose any form of control over your own device.
I think this part is completely tripping you up from understanding all these replies where you dissect comments bit by bit.
People are okay with not having this control. In fact, many pay for it to be done for us, and furthermore, want a more securely, closed environment without the proposed options. To many, this falls apart when more doors and options start to open.
>What if you liked everything Apple does except the part about not allowing you to install 3rd party applications?
That's not what the situation is, though. I can love everything about my car except the part about it using gas. If they don't make that car in a non-ICE version, then I have no recourse. The same thing applies to this. They don't make a device that allows you to install any 3rd party apps. It's not an option so it's a pointless discussion.
If that'd be true then the homebrew scene wouldn't be a thing, but it very much is a thing particularly on Nintendo products.
It's dangerous to haphazardly disregard that as meaningless, by extension it's such movements that fight for very valid consumer rights, like actually owning the hardware that people pay money for.
When I buy a piece of hardware I expect to own it, to run on it whatever I want, to be able to repair it, not to be a "tolerated guest" with only limited access and everything thrown my way to make self-repair as difficult as possible by design.
I lose the App Store, Apple leading the way by enforcing privacy standards, and many other things. Having control isn’t always a good thing. The benefit of having control here “download another App Store” isn’t much of a benefit to me. I love the way things are. That’s why I have an iPhone.
You do not lose the App Store, you can still use it and use only that - it is up to you. That is the entire point: you are in control and if what you want is to keep using the App Store and App Store alone then you can do that.
Others, in the meanwhile, should be able to install whatever application they want if they want to do that. Just because the current situation aligns with what you want to do doesn't mean that it is the perfect situation for everyone - but as long as your situation isn't affected (assuming what you want is about you and not about forcing everyone else to be like you) then you should be fine.
It seems like there are two assumptions underlying your argument:
1. Users have perfect choice in which apps they install.
2. Developers will release their apps on all available app stores.
But many users are compelled to install apps that they would prefer not to and it's not at all obvious that developers would support two app stores instead of one given the choice. The net result of that combination is that some (many?) people would be compelled to use both app stores against their inclination.
No, i have no such assumptions. Developers can and some may even will (though market forces will push at least one app store to be the dominant - chances are it'll be the one that comes out of the box with the device) focus on a single app store and there is nothing wrong with that.
The only wrong part is users not being in control over what they can install on their devices and from where they will install them.
Yes, it is possible that people will be forced to install applications they do not want, but this isn't something that is or even should be up to the OS vendor to try and protect against - the person being forced to do that is the one who should and if they cannot, then legal action should be seeked. The entire issue is outside the scope of the OS.
That seems like a concession that people who currently enjoy the first-party-only app store situation may indeed lose something if third-party-app-stores become a thing.
You can argue (as I think you are) that those losses are outweighed by the gains of a more open ecosystem, but to many users they are meaningful losses.
Delegating that control is, in effect, a form of collective bargaining. Whereas Epic could convince individual users to accept whatever terms of use they wanted to impose, effectively Apple collectively bargains for all those users. That means that, if you like the way Apple negotiates and are comfortable with the trade offs they make, you have much more leverage than if you were negotiating as an individual.
I don't mean to sound sarcastic or rude - we just don't care. I like messing around with undervolting/fan control scripts on my laptop, but my iPhone is just a tool like a thermostat or toaster oven. There's no benefit to my gaining control.
There is a benefit, though. If there was competition between app stores on the iPhone, the quality and quantity of apps available to iPhone users would increase substantially. App stores would compete on fees, attracting developers, protecting consumers, and so on. Fees would drop, developers would face less cost and friction bringing their apps to the market, app stores would have to innovate to keep protecting consumers. Monopolies cause consumer harm.
The biggest irony of all this is that consumers don't seem to realize the harm Apple is doing, because Apple is busy pulling the wool over their eyes by telling them they are protecting their security and privacy. iOS is a nanny state. Apple maintains a culture of fear among consumers to achieve its business goal, which is to maintain its monopoly position.
Nintendo is in a stronger negotiating position vs. game companies, if the hardware only accepts signed games. This makes it easier to get exclusive games, prevents piracy(which encourages games to be made in the first place), and allows Nintendo to enforce standards across all games.
Console hardware doesn't have much value by itself: Computers are plentiful, so if you just want something to run software pick up a Raspberry Pi or Nvidia Jetson. Their value derives from the games that companies make, so ceding power to the game companies(via Nintendo) makes your console more valuable.
Because then someone else can handle making sure I'm not getting virus filled software and it also increases the signal to noise ratio, especially on PS4/Switch. I don't want my PS4/Switch to be a general computing platform.
You don't want the full capabilities of your hardware you paid for? The Nvidia Jetson is the controllable version of the switch and it's much weaker. You don't want your switch to play games and be a hardware accelerator? You don't want the best silicon to run your own software?
The capabilities that I paid for are what I got. I did not pay for a device that lets me install whatever app or widget I want. I paid for an iPhone knowing exactly what it was and wasn't capable of and I paid for that specifically because I know that Apple doesn't need to dedicate resources to anything other than my device. Taking that away changes the entire ecosystem and all the benefits presented by it.
Look at Macs vs. PCs. There are entire industries dedicated to fixing the problems presented by the amount of options available on a PC. I don't want that. I want a device that I know works to do the things I need it to do. If the day comes where I need to do something I can't, I'll need to find another device.
So, will you be happy if the government asks Apple to remove every messenger that allows encryption? That's what users in China get.
Also, it's nice that you mention Macs. On Macs, you can install any app bypassing the AppStore. As it should be on a proper computer, and iPhone IS a computer.
Have you seen what the average Mac user’s computer often looks like? It’s often a mess of five years old Adobe flash update messages, and adware like MacKeeper. I know because I’ve had to spend hours cleaning this trash up from machines belonging to friends and family. Meanwhile this has never been an issue on the iPhone.
The lack of UX-degrading software on the iPad is also the primary reason why I’ve been pushing my friends and family away from the Mac and onto the iPad. With the limited software ecosystem of the iPad, there’s far less things for them to screw up on the Mac.
Well, some people just love their chains. It is ok, I guess, their right to agree to bondage. But why do they insist that everyone else should be as enslaved as they are themselves?
And yes,I've seen Macs of average users. Never saw anything really wrong there. You are exaggerating the issue.
This false argument is done to death by Apple apologists. Apple sells the device, but somehow feels itself entitled to control what the user can and can't do to it even after sale. It shouldn't be their business which apps a user wants to run on the device.
Why don't you address it then? There is a world of more open software and hardware out there if you want that freedom. Why should everyone be subject to exactly the product you want?
It was addressed a lot of times before, but OK, I'll do it again.
You see, you too want the product I am describing, but you are too myopic to understand it. Maybe it is because you come from a better place than I, where the government does not actively censor app stores. Imagine, that some day Apple will remove the app you use, would you still say 'ok, I knew what product I bought'?
With iOS devices, you don't buy a product that can run a set of apps. You buy a product where the app you use may stop working any day, because some random moderator or executive at Apple will decide this way.
>You buy a product where the app you use may stop working any day
This has happened to me with more products than I can count on both the Mac and PC side and with nearly every mobile device I've ever used. Tons of apps on SymbianOS and Windows Mobile that worked on one device didn't work on the next device I bought. The current environment is a vast improvement on everything that came before it.
Maybe that's why you're being so condescending. We've lived through the evolution that got us here while you, quite clearly, think that open, by default, equals better simply because it's better for you as an individual. There are many, many people that view the iPhone environment and Apple's ecosystem as the better option. They're obviously all wrong.
You failed to understand that there are no options for iPhone apps market, and users are open to all kinds of abuse: by Apple themselves and by authoritarian governments like in China or Russia. Now, I happen to live in an authoritarian country and I'm kinda more inclined to be not ok with the company that removes access to apps that fail to give up user data to government crooks.
You claim that users 'agree' to this when they buy Apple devices. But to what exactly that agree? That apple can take away any app they use, any time? Even the one that was perfectly available when buying the device?
The 'deal' you get with apple by buying their hardware can be altered at any time, so the only thing you can do is pray that they don't alter it any further.
Apple doesn't need me to carry water for them, but you're actually damaging the case for open hardware and software by carrying on like a porkchop because closed hardware and software is also available.
> You claim that users 'agree' to this when they buy Apple devices.
I claimed no such thing. Read my words directly and please don't put your own spin on them.
In a market where both options exist why should one change to be like the one you prefer?
Yeah. Just read this fresh news: "Google is apparently taking down all/most fediverse apps from the Play Store" [1]. To quote source:
"Google is apparently taking down all/most fediverse apps from google play on the grounds that that some servers in the fediverse engage in hate speech"
I don't understand how that's any different than Google? China has a country-wide firewall too so, even if you have an Android phone, there's no way to get around that without breaking the law.
Also, what happens on a Mac has no bearing on what happens on the iPhone even if I made an analogy using the Mac. I need that type of access on my Mac. If they ever remove that, I'll need to find another option. That's not the case with the iPhone so your point is moot.
And on an iPhone, you can jailbreak and install apps too. At least in that case, you need technical knowledge and a willful understanding that you're voiding any kind of support.
I think it’s strange that others (a small subset of people) want to take something great and ruin it. I understand that someone wants to tinker with their phone, but in that case that’s just not what an iPhone is for. It never has been.
What's the argument here, why not just don't use an iPhone then? Why turn an iPhone into more of an Android? I have an iPhone because I don't want to be like an Android. It's a feature to me that this (and other possibilities, bad and good) is not possible, hence why I bought it.
Me choosing to use hardware x because software y is unavailable does not impact you either. You don't like iPhone or any "i" environment, don't use it.
You have to understand that to many of us it is very much a feature that it's not possible to sideload or allow more control of your device. It's not lack of a feature, it is a feature. Just as much as a feature to you is the ability to sideload or take more control. This is why I should buy an iPhone and you should not. My preferences are different than yours. I do not want you, myself, or others to have some of these abilities; not merely the option not to use them.
I very much like the iPhone because of design architecture differences over Android. It's not perfect but (imo) closer to perfect than Android. We live in a world with many options and not all must subscribe to the same paradigm.
The lack of ability to install other App Stores reduces fragmentation and potentially improves the overall user experience of the product.
If I wanted choice in App Stores I would buy an Android phone. I don't care about choice of App Stores and I prefer the consistency of a single, consistent, secure source of Apps. Therefore, I bought an iOS device.
All these points are moot as the main Appstore would be made much less valuable because it is assumed many major app players would diverge away. Even quoting the line, it was still largely glossed over:
> ...prefer the consistency of a single, consistent, secure source of Apps.
What is consistent when every app player is part of a different app store? Suddenly Microsoft has their own, Google has their own, Epic Games as their own, etc.
What is consistent would be your experience if you choose to only use the Apple App store. That experience would remain consistent.
> No thank you.
Then don't use those app stores?
If the conversation is about your rights, as an Apple user, then other people doing what they want with their own phones does not matter.
Someone can, right now, remove their app from the Apple app store, and nobody would claim that if they did they, then they are infringing on your rights as a user. So I am not sure why you would bring that up.
Nobody would claim that you are forced to do anything, if an app just removed themselves completely from an app store, so that is not relevant.
I think it's strange that you don't want me to have the product I want to have. Nobody is forcing you to buy an Apple product, and there are plenty of stellar alternative products from numerous other brands.
The main issue with iOS isn't really so much iOS itself but the secondary effects it has over the entire industry - after all it has been very clear that Microsoft is salivating over the prospect of being Apple v2.0 and having as much control over the PC ecosystem as Apple has over the iOS ecosystem.
Are you telling me there is no “Linux of mobile devices” out there? I’m struggling to recall but I feel like there have been many much more open devices _and_ OSs our there but it turns out consumers don’t care enough about those aspects to want that.
I don't want Apple exploiting their vendor lock-in and robbing other companies of 30% sales of a digital only product, even if it doesn't personally impact me. That is not strange or hard to understand IMHO.
>Nobody is forcing you to buy an Apple product, and there are plenty of stellar alternative products from numerous other brands.
We want to fix things (even in companies that we otherwise might like) that we think are morally unacceptable. That's how progress is made.
You can advocate your own position too, nothing wrong with both of us doing so.
> I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer.
Because many of us feel that the alternative (The nightmare that is the desktop PC application ecosystem) would be far worse, especially on a smartphone.
Some people choose to live in the country, off the grid, and wonder why people would want the live in a city (under closer scrutiny of others and the government). For this “freedom” to work they run all their own infrastructure, need to manage their own defense (against fire and wild animals), and have little or no support if things go really wrong but they prefer it this way, it suits them.
Meanwhile the city dweller chooses the opposite for many reasons and makes different concessions, but it suits them.
Neither is these are strictly wrong but to claim one is better than the other _for everyone_ is misguided and is essentially what this argument is here. Pick your own path but don’t presume it’s the right one for everybody and don’t destroy the other’s ecosystem such that they can no longer choose it.
As i wrote in another comment, those comparisons 99.9% of the time lose a ton of details so they are not helpful at all.
The choice for others to have no choice is not really much of a choice - not only i want to have a choice in what i install on iOS devices but i also want the ability to have a choice available in all of the devices i paid for, especially in an environment where other companies see Apple's success and become too thirsty for it and try to copy them (see Microsoft as an example).
You’re framing your preference for openness as a choice and another’s preference for regulation as “having no choice” which is exactly the problem I was trying to highlight. You see your option as the only option so all others are a mistake, and so are dictating what options are available (is only yours). Do you not see this is removing people’s choice? Especially if already today there are other ecosystems that cater to your desire?
I do not make such a framing, the choice i describe is about what to install in your device - this assumes the ability is already there. I do not refer to having the ability itself as a choice.
All analogies will have that problem, it's unconstructive to dismiss them like this. Understanding this is part of how arguing and exchanging ideas takes place.
I don't think it's Apple's fault if other companies try to copy them poorly. I'm very familiar with what you mean and it bothers me too, but I don't think that means Apple needs to change.
Well, you just look at the PC ecosystem and you can see the nightmare.
Like others,I prefer Apple to have a tightly controlled App Store and believe that the benefits far outweigh the ability to install software from a 3rd party App Store.
For example, Apple requiring Sign In with Apple (when signin with Google/Facebook are implemented) where you can hide your email address. That’s not possible with multiple app stores. Apple helps lead the way with privacy.
If you want multiple app stores and all that, just buy an Android phone. iPhone is for people like me who want a tightly controlled experience. That’s the way it’s designed. You don’t buy a Corolla and get mad that you can’t off road with it, do you?
I do not see a nightmare, that is the thing - why do you see one?
What you describe is possible with multiple app stores and allowing 3rd party apps - you just do not use those other stores and apps. Nobody is forcing you to use a 3rd party app store, but Apple is forcing everyone to go through their store.
You can keep your tightly controlled experience by not using anything else than Apple - but that doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to do the same thing.
> You don’t buy a Corolla and get mad that you can’t off road with it, do you?
99.9% of the time such comparisons ignore details and derail discussion, so they aren't very helpful.
Nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone either. There are plenty of options with different trade offs.
Allowing 3rd-party app stores has predictable negative externalities (privacy, security, etc.). Which is why I and others are not interested in that development. Apple is able to make developers engage in less shitty business practices precisely because they can control the distribution of software through the App Store . It’s no surprise that as Apple has increasingly focused on privacy and removing tracking capabilities and other dark patterns that developers are trying to find a way around Apple’s restrictions. It’s not like they all of a sudden implemented a new fee. It’s been there for years.
> 99.9%....
I guess this is the .1%? You don’t buy something expecting it to do something completely different. You don’t buy an iPhone expecting to install whatever you want. You don’t buy a Corolla expecting to off-road with it.
> You don’t buy something expecting it to do something completely different. You don’t buy an iPhone expecting to install whatever you want. You don’t buy a Corolla expecting to off-road with it.
Apple's current behavior isn't written in stone and dictated by God, it can change.
Root access used to be a concern for me, but it became much less useful when Xposed had to enter the cat-and-mouse game against SafetyNet. And now that unlocked bootloaders can't be hidden from SafetyNet, I don't even bother with root. And because of that I've been considering just switching to the next iPhone and going all in on Apple's ecosystem.
That's true, but it's nice to know it's there so you can have a use for old hardware, or to debug something obscure. More importantly, it's about the type of users it will attract.
Being able to have multiple app stores on android is also pretty good. I have an iPhone for work, and it's fine, but I don't know how people live with one. Everything wants to have ads or wants me to pay for it.
> You don’t buy an iPhone expecting to install whatever you want.
I specifically bought an iPhone to facetime my family from another country. I'd love to be able to have my apps from my old android. Or, use facetime from an android...
But yeah, I'd love to install whatever I want and that's what I'd expect instead of having to buy everything twice when I switched OSes.
There are plenty of competitors to Facetime, available across multiple different platforms. Google and Facebook for example enjoy pushing their messaging and video messaging ecosystems across multiple devices.
There's nothing unique about Facetime, except it's Apple exclusive.
Yeah, the issue is that we're talking about my parents here. I'm happy to use a different service (in fact, I prefer it) but my parents are old and stubborn and refuse to use a different service.
> What you describe is possible with multiple app stores and allowing 3rd party apps - you just do not use those other stores and apps
That does indeed offer a solution, but I think the result is a fractured ecosystem where eventually apps end up on the "other " app store for one reason or another (They want a feature they can't get on the official one etc.).
With apple, devlopers have to bend over backwards to fit the ecosystem. That's both good and bad of course, but it keeps the ecosystem in one place with all apps being in the "safe" app store. I don't have to wonder whether that one app I want is safe to sideload/get from a third party store etc.
What I think is hard to understand is that I really really don't assign any value to being able to "do what I want" with my device. I absolutely don't want it to be anything like a PC and I don't mind being told what I can and can't do, for very little benefit, such as a tiny bit of security or a tiny bit of simplicity. It doesn't even have to be a lot.
This isn't really much of a concern if all you care about is Apple-like integration: even if there are other options, you can still stick with the options that offer you that integration.
> Nobody is forcing you to use a 3rd party app store, but Apple is forcing everyone to go through their store.
Many employers do that very thing. How many people have been compelled by employment circumstances to install Zoom despite its dubious pedigree? What happens when a corporate timecard app exists only in a 3rd party app store?
Having a choice is better than not having one, all around.
You can argue the changing employers is hard. I can also argue that 50% of my customers use iPhones and so I have to use one and know how they work. I literally cannot have an app business without dealing with Apple. That’s why this is an anti-trust situation.
In the same way, though, that you can suggest I work somewhere else, I can suggest that you run your app business on another platform, so that doesn't seem to advance the argument very much? Plenty of folks make a living on the web or by selling Windows or Linux software.
Having choice about some things is better than not having one, all around. But some people choose (!) to delegate their choosing to others in certain fields. For example, the choice of whether to purchase safe meat or unsafe meat is a bad choice to have. It's doubly bad if you aren't skilled at determining the safety quality of meat. That's a choice I'm happy to outsource to a third party. Similarly, I'm happy to outsource a variety of choices about app terms of use to Apple.
> I can suggest that you run your app business on another platform...
Did you miss the part where I said that 50% of my customers use an iPhone? To be clear: 50% of the general population in the United States uses an iPhone. 90% of the youth market uses an iPhone. That doesn't leave much of a choice for developers at all.
You simply cannot have a successful app business in the US without being on Apple's app store.
Meanwhile, there are millions of potential employers in the United States.
For some definition of "app business", sure. But there are plenty of companies making plenty of money in software without touching any app store. To be sure, Apple's popularity puts them in a really good negotiating position with respect to developers who want to sell certain kinds of software.
And my argument is that some harm is already happening to some consumers [0, 1] and some more harm is already happening to the many, many developers who have complained about Apple's reprehensible behavior surrounding their app store.
With a law that requires Apple to open their platform to allow actually usable sideloading and/or competing app stores, we'd have removed more harm than we've added.
[0] Me, for example since I can't even comfortably put a program, that I wrote, onto my own device without paying Apple $100 a year.
[1] Every one of my business customers who wants a native app for their customers who they already had a relationship with before Apple came along and stuck their nose in to say what we could and could not do with our customers customers devices.
That's good - we've moved from no harm to a balancing competing harms, which I think reflects the reality of the situation.
There's a spectrum of what you're allowed to do software-wise with various computing devices you purchase.
One the one extreme, you have something like a washing machine. It's a computing device running a particular suite of software that is essentially impossible for the end user to modify or replace. Many (most?) embedded systems are like this.
On the other extreme, you've got open hardware platforms like the Arduino where you can do whatever you want with the software for a very large value of "whatever you want".
The Raspberry Pi is in the middle, but very close to the Arduino. A Nintendo is somewhere in the middle but close do the dishwasher. Android devices are somewhere in the middle, but closer to the Arduino than the dishwasher (though this varies between devices and manufacturers). iOS devices are, again, somewhere in the middle. Much is allowed. Some things are not. OS X devices are closer to the Arduino than iOS devices are. That's also an intentional choice by Apple.
The placement of iOS along that spectrum is an intentional choice by Apple that customers have proven to support by buying iOS devices in prodigious quantity.
It's not obvious to me that taking a market leading choice in that spectrum and removing it produces less harm in the balance. It might, but it also might not. I'd be inclined to let people vote with their wallet as long as viable alternatives abound, which they do.
> That's good - we've moved from no harm to a balancing competing harms, which I think reflects the reality of the situation.
Not really, because there is no balance. Way more harm is done in the name of protecting people than is done by allowing freedoms.
The rest of your argument is predicated upon there being some kind of balance. There isn't one.
You don't need to look any further than The War on Drugs to see this. It's already been scientifically proven that letting people do what they want is far better for society. The only people who work to keep drugs illegal are those who benefit from them being illegal. Same thing here.
There's not much more to say about this. You're never going to convince me that removing freedom is better for society when people will always have the choice to remove it for themselves by making the right choices about who to associate with or who to do business with.
You've made a compelling argument that Apple should be allowed to, in their freedom, do whatever they feel appropriate with regard to their own App store. The we each can make the right choice about whether or not we as individuals should do business with them. We should allow them that freedom. I'm convinced!
> You've made a compelling argument that Apple should be allowed to, in their freedom, do whatever they feel appropriate with regard to their own App store.
They're free to try. There's more of us than them though and we're also free to continue enforcing our existing anti-trust laws and make new ones for important digital platforms.
I advocate for freedom for the common man. What are you doing here?
It seems like you've moved from a position of "way more harm is done by protecting people than allowing freedoms" to "more harm is done by allowing Apple to do as they wish; we need protection from that", despite Apple being a subset of "people".
And the "more of us than them" suggests that rather than any principled approach, you advocate something like the mob rule that the Athenians described to the Melians: the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Fair enough. That position has been common enough throughout history. Right now lots of people appear to like the way Apple is running their company. Does that make it right? You seem to think no, but are articulating reasons why you should think yes. That's perplexing to me.
I'm trying to make sense of what I think about the disagreement between Apple and Epic. I'm not sure. The arguments people are making against Apple so far seem unsuccessful and problematic to me. I think the collective bargaining argument I've cautiously advanced might make some sense.
If you couldn’t tell that I completely disagree with your backwards notion of what’s right and good by now and that nothing you’ll say will convince me that less freedom for common folks is somehow better...even after I’ve told you this directly...yet you keep responding to me, I guess you just need to have the last word?
Again a comparison that doesn't make sense - also employers pay you whereas when you buy an iOS device you pay for it. So not only you give Apple your money but also you give up control to them.
That wasn't a comparison. If 3rd party app stores are a thing, you might be compelled to use them by yet other third parties, contrary to your claim that no one would force you to use third party app stores.
Ah i see, i thought you were comparing employers forcing you to install something with Apple forcing everyone to go through their App Store.
Well, in that case, if employers force you to install something then just tell them give you a work phone. Or talk to them, you are adults.
And if that doesn't work, well, tough luck. This sounds like trying to solve a malfunctioning workplace problem by making everyone else suffer - it isn't my or Apple's or anyone else's problem that your boss forces you to install shady apps.
Part of the reason I pay Apple for their devices is that they have offered to solve this problem for me. It's part of the value proposition of their device.
I'm not convinced the problems are larger (or, at least, not that they're larger for most people; some people are seriously inconvenience by Apple's policies. I once hit a hard roadblock trying to develop something for the iPhone and had to switch to Android exclusive development; so it goes). And I think having different organizations exploring different tradeoffs in this space is a valuable thing. There are platforms that are more open that Apples and platforms less open. That variety is healthy.
I'm not sure what sort of tradeoff is there to explore: there aren't any real (not perceived, like prefering Apple's control that you do not really lose since you can have the option - even by default - stick with Apple, i mean actually real) positives for anyone involved outside of Apple. But the negatives is currently for the users not being in control over the devices they bought (i really cannot fathom how people are fine with that, every response i've read here really sounds like Stockholm syndrome) and in the future having a precedent for other companies to follow - thus affecting not only the people who use Apple now, but also people of the future (also many people taking a "let's see first the bad stuff happening and then we might judge and take some actions" is a problem by itself - by the time this is commonplace it will be way too late to take any real action).
And besides, what different organizations exploring what different tradeoffs? Right now the only practical options are Apple and Android, there aren't really that many options as to have a healthy environment and Google isn't immune to making decisions that can have an overall negative impact to the control that people have over the stuff they buy (see their Stadia console as an example and how it completely and absolutely removes any notion of control from people buying games - not even consoles, let alone PCs, feature such loss of control).
Perhaps an opportunity to cultivate some empathy and listen carefully to people whose relationship with computational devices is very different from yours. Telling people that their concerns are imaginary isn't a good way to persuade them.
I know people who break from what you call the practical options in both directions -- some who reject smartphones altogether and live their lives without them, doing all their digital work on computers that they have full control over -- and some who use only the stock apps on their phone and wish that app stores were not a thing. They want an entirely managed experience.
Neal Stephenson's essay In the Beginning was the Command Line gets at some of this nicely. Some people are, as he says, Eloi and some Morlocks. That's OK.
Yes. That bit my wife. She loved her iPad but we ended up getting a laptop solely for Zoom and zoom rooms for some volunteer work she does.
Off topic rant: I was going to get her Dell. I had forgotten how bad the consumer Dells were. By the time you get a decent one, you might as well get a MacBook Air.
I’ve been running PCs and Macs in my house for over 2 decades. I have not once had a problem with viruses.
Most of my problems have been with restrictions that Apple has put on me in their Mac and iOS product lines.
> Apple requiring Sign In with Apple (when signin with Google/Facebook are implemented) where you can hide your email address. That’s not possible with multiple app stores.
Yes it is. You, as a consumer can choose to stay in the Apple app store where developers have to follow that rule. If a particular developer is only publishing in the non-Apple app store, you can simply use a competing app that is in Apple’s app store. This is the same advice you’d give to someone who doesn’t like Apple products at all... you’d say “Go buy an Android”. In the future though, you’ll only have to say “Go use a non-Apple app store”.
So would Apple be better off serving you or the general population? I think the numbers speak for themselves.
> I think I know: You would gladly trade the freedom of the general population for security.
If so - I'm sorry to hear that. If not, maybe you should think about what you're saying because you're on the wrong side of the debate.
Yes because when the founding fathers came up with the phrase they were referring to the “freedom” to save a little money buying virtual currency to buy the Carlton dance in Fortnite.
You are perfectly free to buy an Android device. Most people would gladly choose some type of assurance that they could install video conferencing software and not have a secret web server installed that they don’t know to delete (ie Zoom)
Can you name one time where the government was involved in tech where it didn’t do more harm than good in the last 30 years? The DMCA? COPPA? You actually trust the same group of representatives that were drilling Zuckerberg about Twitter’s policies to understand tech?
Even in California where they passed laws that were suppose to “help” Uber and Lyft drivers had the effect of making it harder for truck drivers who wanted to contract to do so.
Let’s just come up with “Five Year Plans”, because feels cant fathom that 50% of the US willingly made a choice to be in the “walled gardened”. Just like after everything that happened with the Microsoft and the Justice Department, “the Year of Linux on the Desktop” never happened and everyone is not compiling their own operating system.
Know grandma might have wanted to download Firefox and downloaded the version from SourceForge with adware. More recently, if you search for a printer driver for your printer, the first link is not from the vendor, it’s ftom a third party where the driver may or may not be real but definitely has bundled crap.
If you wanted to download software, why wouldn’t you go to “download.com” (owned by CNET who is owned by CBS) and you see the software you want from a reputable source that is still bundled with crapware.
Let’s not forget that Chrome became popular originally because it was also bundled with third party software.
What has that got to do with PCs? All you're describing are flaws in other products - namely Google's search. Google does a terrible job because they promote illegitimate sources over legitimate ones. The solution is to not use Google.
What does this have to do with PCs? Your question was about PCs
Are you saying a grandma starts a PC and immediately knows about SourceForge?
So which search engine do you suggest? What if there were a secondary App Store on phones? Selling a “free” version of some popular app?
Why would the same issue of slimy developers who game the system on PCs not do the same on phones?
On the other hand, isn’t that exactly what users are doing? They are purposefully avoiding a Google product - Android - with all of its “openness” to buy an iPhone. Tell me again why we need the government involved?
>What does this have to do with PCs? Your question was about PCs
Your answer wasn't about PCs, it was about flaws in other products/services.
>So which search engine do you suggest? What if there were a secondary App Store on phones? Selling a “free” version of some popular app?
I would suggest them to not install apps unless it was recommended by someone they trust and they were confident that it wasn't junk. This would apply to PC software, smartphone apps and everything else. Its no different than how you go about finding a trusted mechanic, or a pest control service or a trusted handyman or whatever.
Curation can happen in many ways. Apple could recommend it, your friend who knows about "computers" could, maybe its a magazine/website you trust, etc, etc. The point is about choice and freedom.
We get to make the rules of the economy we want to operate in. The entire purpose of the government is to serve our needs, and if its not doing that we should change the rules. Both sides can make their cases. I am happy to oppose Apples oppressive policies (in this case).
I would suggest them to not install apps unless it was recommended by someone they trust and they were confident that it wasn't junk.
You mean like friends recommending Firefox and someone naturally going to Google to search for “Firefox” and the top link being malware? If someone recommended an app and they found a fake version on the third party App Store how would they know the difference?
How has that worked out for the past 30 years on computers where we are always hearing about yet another ransomware attack?
The point is about choice and freedom.
You mean like “freedom” to choose an Android over an iPhone?
We get to make the rules of the economy we want to operate in. The entire purpose of the government is to serve our needs
Actually you don’t. The executive branch is not chosen by “the people” it’s chosen by the Electoral College which has gone against the popular vote twice in the last 20 years.
The Senate is chosen by the states where each state regardless of population gets two Senators. 46% of the Senators represent around 25% of the population.
The judicial branch is chosen by the two least representatives parts of the government - the executive branch and the Senate.
If you think not being able to sideload apps on a device you didn’t have to buy is, I wonder how you feel about the “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, civil forfeiture, imminent domain used to take property and give it to more profitable businesses and the President unilaterally telling a business it has to sell to another company? Is this the government you want to give more power too?
>You mean like friends recommending Firefox and someone naturally going to Google to search for “Firefox” and the top link being malware? If someone recommended an app and they found a fake version on the third party App Store how would they know the difference?
Again, if they are not sure how to discern the difference because of flaws in Google, they should not be using Google. Their friend or maybe a curation website or whatever should give them a direct link. Why are you assuming that this is not possible? People share direct links to websites and videos and other things all the time.
>You mean like “freedom” to choose an Android over an iPhone?
No, that is not freedom. When every company is in on the scam, you need government intervention. When all companies are abusing your privacy, you need new laws. The existing laws were made for non-digital marketplaces. You can setup a lemonade stand without Apple robbing 30% of your sales, but if you try to make an app you first need to beg apple for permission to write software, then apple will rob you of 30% of your sales. Sorry, that is not morally acceptable to me, and I don't even work in the software industry anymore. I work in vaccines. We need new laws as goods and services transition over to digital-markets. Modern problems need modern solutions.
>Is this the government you want to give more power too?
By setting the rules of the economy as such, the government already gave too much power to corporations. Its time to change the balance of power to what we think is morally acceptable. I'm not even saying everything has always sucked. Maybe the existing laws did work fairly well for a while, but I don't believe they have any magical power that we can't amend them as we see fit.
Would you support compelling developers who have a monopoly on a particular app to support all available app stores? It seems like a developer who held a monopoly in a particular app would be the in the same position Apple is in with the app store writ large?
For example, if the only way to fill out my employer's timecard is via an iOS app, should they be compelled to offer the app in all the available app stores?
What it it's essential to the life of a relatively small group of users? It seems like the rights of smaller groups like that are the ones that most need collectively bargained, as they'll be in a relatively poor position to negotiate with the organization compelling them to use the app?
You created the hypothetical, not me. So you can feel free to answer your own questions because I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
This is about giving users and developers a choice outside of Apple's app store. If you like freedom and choices, you should get on the right side of this debate.
If some relatively small group of users had a choice, they would always be able to choose Apple's protection.
I’ve been a part of a small group of users not offered that choice (essentially, install remote access on your personal device or terminate you employment), so I appreciate Apple negotiating for me.
Sounds like the problem lies with whatever group you chose to associate with.
If you're depending on Apple to stop you from making bad decisions about what kinds of employers to work for, I think you've got bigger problems than what might happen if there were an alternate iPhone app store.
Then you’d buy a different car. I’m happy to use the specific gas and roads. I buy it knowing that I’m getting the benefits of that specific gas and road with the trade off that I can’t use whatever gas and roads I want.
Even in this contrived example, you're still allowed to exclusively use your specific gas and roads if the car manufacturer is forbidden from demanding you do so.
Hahahah.
Don't get a German car. My god, they would force you to refuel at a fucking dealer if they could. BMW already makes the car go into limp mode if they detect you changed the battery and didn't use an CAN dongle to reset the computer.
Depends on what advantages it gave me. If it was impossible for the car to get into a accident where I hurt myself or others I would certainly consider it.
How's this not possible? You can _choose_ which appstore to use, if there are multiple, and stick to the original Apple one and preserve what you currently have. For apps not released on the Apple Store, you can choose not to use them, exactly like you are asking others to do by not allowing to have multiple appstores.
I don’t think they said it wasn’t possible. I think the point was that Apple/iPhone users don’t care. Maybe folks who would want an iPhone if they could do what you’re proposing—but those aren’t the folks currently giving Apple any money.
> Well, you just look at the PC ecosystem and you can see the nightmare.
As somebody who's been looking and working in it for decades, I don't see it?
To me the actual nightmare are closed walled gardens giving users a false sense of security about the software they offer on their services as supposedly all being "vetted".
And because by now the mobile space is the biggest target there is, malicious actors have shifted their attack vectors accordingly [0].
Even with these walled gardens in place, we've reached a point where the mobile app ecosystem is going trough its own phase of "You need this Norton/McAfee/blah product to keep your device secure/optimized!" just like the PC ecosystem did and still does.
As such the "gatekeepers" have effectively failed at gatekeeping anything that ain't explicit sexual content.
Corollas won't actively resist you going offroad, or being modified until it can drive offroad and win the manufacturer title in the WRC[0]. In contrast Apple resists modification of both their software & hardware so much that's it's spawned a whole right-to-repair movement around it. I like the fact the PC ecosystem allows so much freedom. I have a countless amount of mods for my games that aren't nor will be developer sanctioned, downloaded from an open-source browser running multiple aggressive privacy plugins that I know for a fact won't run on whatever engine Safari uses, all on a PC I built myself with an overclock that has voided most of my warranties. In the mobile space I use a Google pixel from which I theoretically could run anything I want on if Verizon wasn't a complete asshole with the bootloader. None of those things would be possible with anything Apple produces.
Now normally I would say that as a company you have the right to legally abuse your userbase however you want, but when you get this big that your profit margin exceeds that of several democratic countries and your particular flavor of abuse is inspiration for product development in general, than I'm going to support you losing that particular privilege.
> You don’t buy a Corolla and get mad that you can’t off road with it, do you?
That is not an artificial restriction. If you take it off road, it will perform as car not designed to be taking off road does. It won't refuse to leave the road to protect Toyota's brand.
Here are just some reasons why android isn’t an alternative:
Most ship with maleware that can’t be removed (or can’t be removed without giving up on updating the OS.)
Android still doesn’t let you run a lot of 3rd party software (the latest version breaks Termux for example.)
Apple’s anticompetitive behavior also ties people to the platform (iMessage is a great example of this. My family won’t use any other IM app so even if I buy another phone (which I have, it’s supposed to arrive in September) I’ll have to keep my iPhone just to talk to them.)
Finally the hardware is just bad. Qualcomm does not make nice SOCs (IMO) but it could be just because the software they provide with them is complete garbage. There’s no alternative in the US either.
Heads up, this is what iPhones will be like with an open app store. You'll be waiting on Verizon to get their ads into the latest version of iOS before you can install it.
Just because there’s an open App Store doesn’t mean apple has to give root to random organizations (I’m not even sure what confusion caused you to link the two ideas.)
That would happen if apple allowed other organizations to customize the OS which is a different discussion.
No, seriously, how would you build a computer platform that everybody, even computer iliterate people can use and install programs without constantly ending up with malware, scams and other nasty stuff that steals their money or information?
The apple iOS model seems to be the most promising here. It comes with huge tradeoffs in user control but for a large part of the worlds population I think its the right choice.
You should try a linux system. They have an app store equivalent, but where everything is safe (as in security).
But in this case you dont lose any level of control, since the appstore itself there isnt limited. The only thing not allowed is unsecure apps. Thats all.
Yes the iOS idea is great, but there is no need to impose arbitrary restrictions.
You can have a kiosk mode in any OS without giving up freedoms for people who don't need to be straight jacketed. I don't want to beg Apple or Samsung or Google or Microsoft or anyone for the ability to program a computer that I purchased.
I think what you describe is really overblown - i know many computer illiterate people and 99% of the issues they have with their PCs is about what will happen if they Like something on Facebook or Microsoft forcing some update that takes ages to finish in their $250 laptop. The same people also run Android (which allows 3rd party installations) and they never had any issues with malware - largely because they never install anything outside the Play Store (something that explicitly requires turning on an option in settings that they have no idea about anyway). That would work with iOS perfectly fine.
As for the PC, i think what Apple was doing with macOS until recently (allowing you to run unsigned software you downloaded from the Internet by doing the "right click dance") was a perfectly fine compromise between security for computer illiterate people and still being in control for people who know what they are doing.
Nothing about Apple's model requires Apple to be the only one who can say what you can do with your own device - you can still have Apple be in control by default but also provide a way to take control yourself if you know what you are doing.
>The nightmare that is the desktop PC application ecosystem
As a former owner of multiple Maemo devices, avid GNU/Linux and FOSS advocate, and user of F-Droid applications when possible, this "nightmare" is a level of control that I dream about having on my phone...
I only do a handful of things on my phone, and I need it to do those things reliably. My new laptop, on the other hand, opens with a Philips head screwdriver and almost everything can be replaced or upgraded. Different priorities for different needs.
Lack of realistic choice. If you are the average consumer looking to buy a smartphone, you have the choice of either Android or Apple. You get more choice with a PC, to an extent - the average consumer is going to get to choose between Microsoft, something like a chromebook, or apple. (Most folks buy mainstream, widely available products that work out of the box). I'm not sure the market for non-standard products is that high. A non-significant number of folks wouldn't put anything on their computer that hasn't been approved for fear of "bad things".
Windows, Apple and Chromebooks are all proprietary platforms. With PC you also have the choice to install Linux, which is the categorical difference. With smartphones there's not really an open choice available.
I specifically didn't mention Linux because Linux isn't a realistic choice for the average consumer, though. Realistic choices come commonly pre-installed and works with a range of things without much work for the end consumer. Most folks don't have the choice to install it due to lack of technical competence anyway. Even folks with the technical know-how often enough don't due to, well, ease of use issues.
(Yes, I know you can buy computers without an OS and you can buy computes with Linux as well - but not enough to be realistic for most folks. I'm pretty sure you can buy phones with a different OS as well but again, not realistic choices).
The issue isn't using it, it's getting it set up, working with all hardware, getting everything that's needed installed across different repositories, configuring everything the way it's needed, then keeping it running, survive updates, and fixing it when it breaks, which desktop Linux is still very prone to (apt dependency conflicts have wrecked beyond repair many Linux installs I've run).
At some point, you have to have a pretty deep understanding of how Linux and computers work to Google the right things, and then understand and apply a fix – or worse, you may have to work out one on your own, which may entail things like reading source code and patching stuff; I'd say I'm somewhat competent as far as running Linux goes, and I've had numerous issues over the years that I was unable to fix, mundane but non-negotiable things like "getting sound to work". Best case, that'll just require more or less heavy command line usage, which only a tiny minority of people have ever used before and which is highly non-intuitive at first.
That amounts to building a very comprehensive set of skills that is completely worthless to most people otherwise, and that you don't need for Windows or macOS, let alone Android/iOS.
Even though that's kinda sad, I don't expect to see any (relevant, mass-market, used by the general public) truly open alternative in the foreseeable future. The market just doesn't seem to be there for it.
On PCs, already pretty much no one uses Linux outside of tech bubbles (and even there, seems like it's behind both Windows and macOS [0]), apparently somewhere around 1-2% [1] among the general population; in practice, it feels like it should be even less, at least based on what mainstream websites I'm familiar with see. And this is for general-purpose computers, where an open OS might have tangible benefits for the general, non-developer/ops public (not sure which, but I guess such a case could be made) – but phones don't seem to be general-purpose computers for most; it seems they're used for media consumption, taking photos, communication, maybe some light gaming, and not much else – all thinks where the existing walled gardens offer a very compelling experience with assurances for security and quality that open platforms might have a hard time delivering.
A truly open smartphone platform would probably face an even harder uphill battle than desktop Linux, and that's already failed to gain traction time and again. You'd need compatible apps for it to gain traction, but who's going to make those? It'd have to offer a really polished UX, I don't see many people picking a clunky, ugly, bug-ridden phone based on GPL vs. proprietary – lots of people (including me) buy iPhones in part because they enjoy their design and UX. How do you make sure apps aren't scattered across lots of malware-infested app stores? How do you make sure people don't inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot all the time if you don't wall them off from choices that might lead to that? But how do you wall off people on a platform that is truly open? And so on, and so on. Unless some tech giant decides their interests align very much with a truly open and relevant mobile OS, I have a hard time seeing it happen – and even then.
The current tech world is much different from when the major desktop environments solidified; this time around, the vast, overwhelming, huge majority of computer users are not enthusiasts or IT professionals anymore like in the 90s, but completely uninterested and uninvested in the tech apart from having it work for them to do relatively simple tasks, similar to what most people outside of the relevant enthusiast bubbles feel towards cars or stoves. I don't want to run Emacs on my stove and maybe blow myself up in the process, I want it to work reliably and safely and just heat my food. I'd actully like no one to be able to tinker at will with safety-critical software in their cars, because their segfaulting Formula 1 brake patch they got from some Facebook page might mean they plow into me and I die.
It would be a challenge to gain a foothold for sure. I suspect the way in would be to have a way to support Android apps (I believe windows phone was doing this for a while?)
As far as malware, I’m not sure why it would be more of an issue on an open platform than it would on Android. I use Linux as a daily driver, and as long as you’re getting software from trusted sources, it’s not much of a concern. I don’t see why it would be different on mobile.
And with regard to you comments about ease of use, I’m not saying an open phone OS should be the only option, or that it should even be the dominant platform. For most people it probably makes sense to go with a widely supported platform which is safe and easy to use. But it would be nice if there was an alternative available for power users, and people who want to experiment with radically different concepts of how to use a smartphone.
Smartphones are basically the main computers people use nowadays. It’s just kind of a shame you have to go through a corporation to use one.
> As far as malware, I’m not sure why it would be more of an issue on an open platform than it would on Android.
> I use Linux as a daily driver, and as long as you’re getting software from trusted sources, it’s not much of a concern. I don’t see why it would be different on mobile.
Not sure if that's true – doesn't Google keep the Play store mostly free of serious malware? Apart from stunts like sideloading Fortnite, I'd expect the vast majority of Android users to get all their apps from the Play Store, so that should be reasonably safe. Of course, Google can pretty much force everyone into the Play Store by denying access to Play services and their huge customer base if you don't, so it's a one-stop shop for next to everyone.
But if every company, publisher, developer may host their own, including their own OpenPlay Services, how do you tell what is a trustworthy source? How do you tell if OpenRando Store is trustworthy when a Google search tells you it has this TokTuk app you've heard of? This isn't like server Linux, where most people are reasonably careful with what they install, sources are relatively few and policed well, and people tend to be at least somewhat knowledgeable, so tricking them is quite hard; this also isn't like desktop Linux, which doesn't have market share. This would be a reasonably large mobile platform used by everyone and their grandma to run a large part of their lives.
I'm quite sure most people wouldn't want to have to have a thorough understanding of how apps, app stores, installs, updates, the OS, typical malware, scams etc. work, just so they have a chance at noticing when things are off in some way. I've next to no idea how iOS works, and that's fine with me, and I'm someone who runs Kubernetes clusters for fun. Whoever spares people from having to have that knowledge and do that work and actively manage their phone like a piece of complicated corporate IT equipment will get all the users; they'd get me, for sure. My phone really just has to work and be secure.
> But if every company, publisher, developer may host their own, including their own OpenPlay Services, how do you tell what is a trustworthy source?
This is exactly the situation you have now with Android: anyone can install an APK from anywhere if they want to.
As far as establishing trustworthy sources, I would imagine this would work a lot like using Apt on debian. You could have a trusted package manager where there is some vetting process for getting listed, and you would trust the community to identify and report malicious packages quickly.
Also unlike the app store or google play, you'd likely be running mostly open source software you can inspect yourself if you want to make sure it's safe.
Lack of realistic choice indeed. Only reason I'm writing this from an iPhone is because every other retail quality mobile device runs freaking Android.
Can you really be a HN reader and continue to feign ignorance on this point?
Go read the comments on any article that mentions Apple (like this one) and you will see the pros and cons repeated 10s of times.
You understand full well, you just don't agree. That's fine, but not really worthy of discussion anymore.
Out of those examples, the only ones properly vetting apps are Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo and Apple are notorious for peddling shitty apps to consumers.
The parent was complaining about Apple being a filter on the apps that users can install on their phones. But that type of restriction is basically the industry norm.
They're all "app stores" that block alternative sources.
All of them distribute games and entertainment apps (music, video, etc). Sony has also distributed apps not related to entertainment, e.g. folding@home.
Saying a console != a smartphone doesn't help discussion when what we're discussing is walled gardens here.
Then what about pretty much every personal computer on the planet? They don't have these kinds of restrictions. How does that play into the whole "industry standard"?
What great features do Android users get as a result of being able to sideload apps which aren’t available on the App Store?
I believe the (weak) answer to the above is the answer to your question. Features are what matters to the majority of users. The ability to sideload apps itself is not.
So let's say you buy a game for $10 and the creator gets only $7 (as Apple keeps $3). But there could be an alterative app store, where the same game would be sold for $9, and the creator would get $8 (the store would keep $1). So the reason is, that with competition, the price of software could decrease and you would save money.
I don't mind that Apple keeps a large commission. But I mind the fact, that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, and the monopoly is always bad for the customers.
I don't use my phone as a pc, I use it to run a few generic apps, make notes and reminders and, obviously, as a phone.
iPhone does the trick for me in that regard, the app library is huge, the consistent design is great, the way it syncs with my macbook is irreplaceable.
Being blocked from running arbitrary code on a phone is not a big deal to the vast majority of users. If that's a dealbreak, buy an android phone. But lets not pretend that doesn't come with huge tradeoffs if you like what the iPhone provides.
For me it’s because that approval process is highly valuable to me as a consumer, and especially as the family member of other consumers. I happily pay more per device to have Apple as the systems administrator for my device.
MOST of the devices I buy the only SW that runs on it is from the manufacturer (either directly or indirectly).
The only devices I get SW from other sources is my computer, phone, and watch -- at least as far as I can recall. And while my computer is a Windows PC and my phone an iPhone - I have never once thought that I'd have access to more/better SW if the iPhone was more open like my PC.
I get what you're saying, but it is so far down the list of concerns for most consumers as to be a complete non-factor.
there is no equivalent alternative.
Android is laggy, low-quality, malware-infested junk.
Windows Phone was beginning to look good. It has great design, quick OS and apps. I wish Microsoft continued at low cost operative mode and just waited for the right opportunities like this.
When was the last time you used Android? That sounds true of 2012 or so but not after.
Android does have a poor status though, the value of it's phones drops precipitously every few months until it levels at $100-$200 a year later, or it was cheap in the first place and good like xiaomi. iPhones don't drop like that.
It's a balancing act. I trust Apple to keep my security and privacy as a priority, and to keep my iOS device up to date and secure, but I can't install things from outside the app store.
I don't trust the android ecosystem in the slightest bit (to the extent that I don't like people connecting to my wifi with their random android devices) to be secure, but I could install whatever I wanted.
Could someone explain what was Apple trying to do? I really don't get their position in this story. It seemed obvious that trying to completely block Epic's Unreal Engine would be causing more legal issues. What is their strategy here? It feels that they actually wanted things to escalate, though I cannot see why they would do this.
As far as I understand, Apple has blocked Epic's developer account which prevents them from developing for iOS. They haven't directly blocked Unreal engine
> This is a quote from the letter that Apple sent to Epic;
>> If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:"
>> [...]
>> - Engineering efforts to improve hardware and software performance of Unreal Engine on Mac and iOS hardware; optimize Unreal Engine on the Mac for creative workflows, virtual sets and their CI/Build Systems; and adoption and support of ARKit features and future VR features into Unreal Engine by their XR team
> That is a statement that Apple made saying they will stop all help they give to Epic getting UE running on all Apple hardware. With the other stuff in the letter it makes it very clear that the problem is not just one for Epic Games, but all of Epic.
I think you're missing the largest part of that, though, and that's what makes your statement incorrect. Apple is not blocking anything that Epic can do with the Unreal Engine. What they're threatening is to revoke the assistance that Apple has always provided Epic as a partner. When WWDC and other presentations roll around, Apple always has presentations from Epic on new games that are coming out. That partnership has, in the past, included early access to dev tools and frameworks (like Metal and ARKit), direct access to engineers at Apple who help Epic optimize their software for Apple hardware, and also a direct feedback channel for licensed developers using the tools that Apple and Epic developed together. Apple is saying that, by violating the terms and losing their developer license, Epic would also be losing this partner access. After all, how can you partner with someone that's actively working against you?
So, to be clear, development for the Unreal Engine would absolutely be impacted but that is not the same thing as "blocking Unreal Engine". Apple can't block the Unreal Engine as a whole since developers license that separately from Epic.
I think this is the more pertinent bit of that email:
> You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:
> All Apple software, SDKs, APIs, and developer tools
If Apple had carried out that threat (which this injunction prevents), it seems like Unreal's development would have come to a halt, as Epic employees would no longer be able to legally use XCode etc. I suppose they could have kept writing code in a text editor, but there would have been no practical way to test it.
Apple seems to have the position that if a company is going to start publishing apps with non allowed systems once that they will probably do it again with other apps. Epic has had the choice to conform to terms (they were not even losing money on in-app unlike the content streaming folks), even if that means removing all mention of in-app and have yet to do so. More or less Apple did the same thing to Facebook in the past for the profile abuse. Facebook just hadn’t prewarned their marketing team they were violating terms of service on purpose.
Edit: not that Epic isn’t right to sue to see if they can get their way, just that they should have sued without violating current terms. My personal belief is that much of the 30% goes to gift card promotions and markup which brings in funds for all developers.
The developer you are talking about didn't break the rules of the app store. Epic -the one with the development of Unreal Engine- is an entirely different legal entity than the one that broke Apple's rules - the forthnite developer. X broke a rule, Apple got pissy and punished both X and Y because both have the same owners. As the judge also acknowledged in the ruling.
Except the developer Apple wanted to ban was Epic and their Unreal engine. That is an entirely different legal entity and developer than Fortnite the game developers on the app store. It also says so in the ruling. So what Apply did was punish X for what Y did. They might as well have banned Microsoft for siding with Epic.
I think Apple was outplayed here, at least for now. Apple uses a single developer account system for both iOS and MacOS. Revoking violating dev accounts is somewhat understandable but because Epic is a large tool vendor on MacOS as well, disabling that account has massive downstream consequences. Due to the particular implementation I don't think its possible for Apple to revoke only the iOS assets.
By being forced to reinstate the entire account under anticompetitive scrutiny, its a PR loss for Apple. If Epic had separate dev accounts for its MacOS and iOS presence it would have played out differently.
Epic actually does have separate accounts; in fact, they not only had separate accounts, but they have entirely separate corporate entities! Apple decided to cancel every account they could find that was even remotely associated with Epic, which the judge thought might be retaliatory and might be "piercing the corporate veil". Apple argues that Epic is essentially trying to use the moral equivalent of sock puppets to let them avoid consequences.
I think Apple thinks they're going to lose, so they tried to apply as much pressure as possible to get Epic to settle prematurely. I can't see why else they would have done it, it just strengthens Epic's case.
Per that analysis, there are massive differences vs the Microsoft case.
- safari is a minority marketshare browser and already existed when iOS was created; Windows already had its marketshare dominance before the browser was invented
- Portable music also pre-existed before iOS.
iPhone and Android were laughing stocks in 2008. To say these points are anticompetitive would require proving they achieved their marketshare by parlaying their existing dominance into a new market, and it’s not clear that happened, especially given the thriving of alternatives like Chrome, Spotify, Tidal, etc.
There is also a bunch of not-actually-anticompetitive points
- charging developers for use of the platform
- disallowing competitive tools
- controlling platform access altogether
All of the above would imply the game console makers like Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft have been anticompetitive for decades. It’s not likely.
The crux to me is if there is a “right to a market“ for otherwise vertically integrated components. Just beside their was a market in he past for those things, doesn’t mean they need to be enshrined in laws. It would be akin to declaring game platforms or mobile platforms as public utilities so that ISVs in other adjacent platform markets can legally force the extension of their business model on other ecosystems. It’s been done with
power generation/distribution,
alcohol brewing/distribution/sales, and
car manufacturing/sales/service.
But those had massive unintended consequences.
There is one area where there may be a clear legitimate issue: Abuse of private APIs. But it would have to be proven.
Each app or game, which runs on iOS devices, should pay Apple 30% of their revenue. These are billions of dollars each year.
The Fortnite game wanted to avoid this fee of 30% by making the game free to download, but the users could pay directly inside the game (the payment mechanism did not go through Apple).
If more apps or games do that, Apple would lose a lot of money. Also, Apple App store is the only way to get apps and games into iOS devices. So if I make a game and I want you to play it, and you know me and my game and you want to play it too, Apple is a "third person", who can stop us from doing so.
You're talking about the reason Apple had to remove Fortnite following Epic Game's decision to add their own payment option. That doesn't explain why they reacted so aggressively towards Epic's Unreal Engine by threatening to block it.
I'm pretty sure that Apple wanted to send an obvious signal to its developers. After Spotify, apparently Apple has decided not to like this kind of antitrust challenges from third party developers, which might be harder than those from users. The simplest option would be threatening developers with retaliation, something like "If you piss me off, I'll make your life miserable". I don't have a gut to fight against such thing, and I guess the same thing may apply to more than 99.9% of other developers as well. This also happened to their internal employees (lawsuit against Gerard Williams III), so I'm not very surprised.
Epic is just the new gang in town establishing themselves while trying to get some shops under their control, by playing being against the long time block owners.
Even if that's the case, a legal and economics competition between those block owners sounds like a positive thing! A more dynamic market is what I want as a developer and consumer.
Heh, I don't see anything dynamic here. You basically choose between two prison cells instead of having an open market where the platform isn't more than a side note.
You can just have no block owners at all. Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy.
Let's say Epic get what they want, that would open iOS to competing app stores and/or would make rules more flexible regarding available payment systems and/or would allow applications to be side loaded. That's more dynamism, market forces can then play their role. I understand that you may want an even more open market, but that's a quite different topic.
> Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy.
That would be a more dynamic kingship than just having one king with full control over the kingdom. I'm not sure what you want to say here. Dynamism doesn't transform the kingdom in a democratic system. Nor is Apple or Epic part of a democratic battle. You seem to be conflating a bunch of things IMHO.
I think what you’d see is not much in the way of price decreases or increased availability of apps, but more dark patterns, malware, and anti-privacy measures.
Apple basically collectively bargains for iPhone users via the App Store. Privacy features, sign-in with Apple, limiting tracking abuse, privacy “Nutrition Facts” and other items will go out the window. Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app. Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen.
It’s all around awful. I really hope Apple wins this court case.
> Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app.
> Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen.
That's the core of the discussion here: you seem to think that's in the interest of the user to have Apple taking all those decisions for themselves. I firmly disagree, I'm a happy user of an iOS device and do release iOS apps, in both case I would prefer to have more choice of trade-off, and to be able to decide for myself instead of Apple taking a decision for all their user base and developers.
Yea, I definitely think it's in my interest and the interest of the vast majority of iPhone users to have Apple make these decisions. I'd rather every developer leave the App Store than switch away from the current model. I'd just use Apple's built-in apps.
Your own situation wouldn't be different if you had alternatives to Apple's store. Apple can even market their own store as the one with higher quality apps and promote their safety guarantees. Applications from another store wouldn't have to be less "safe" (depending on your definition) as other iOS applications, they would still use the same sandbox system and all the other standard APIs. You can always decide to stick to one store and not care about the rest.
Considering the fact that you prefer Apple to block you from other options: it doesn't follow that they should do this to everyone, just that you would still pick that option if you had the choice.
> Your own situation wouldn't be different if you had alternatives to Apple's store.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I think an analogous situation would be the launch of Disney+: it used to be possible to watch Disney series on Netflix, but after Disney decided to launch Disney+, these series were pulled from Netflix to push the adoption of Disney+. For a Netflix user, their situation would very much be affected by Disney+ existing.
Yeah, users have very little choice when it comes to where to get software and so "choice" in Apple's garden doesn't actually translate to user choice but developer/publisher choice since users will have to buy from wherever the software is sold.
It is an open secret that Apple cannot build secure software, that its sandboxing is subpar and that the app store compensates for its failings — kind of how a totalitarian state with weak internal structures compensates for it through inflicting violence.
Where the pedal really hits the metal is with the cost of buying zero day exploits. iOS exploits can be had for much cheaper than Android ones.
I understand that, as a consumer, you don't want to be bothered to know all the implications of your choices, if you had to make them, so you're happy to delegate them to Apple.
But who's to say that Apple has your interests in mind, and not their own, and makes a choice for you that is actually detrimental to you and beneficial to them? Let's say, by locking you in, and preventing any competition.
How would you feel if every other company you buy from did the same?
This isn't about delegating choices to Apple because without gatekeepers actually being able to enforce behavior users have no advocates and get stuck with software that toes the line of being just tolerable enough to use.
Vote with your wallets doesn't really work since people will put up with plenty of abuses for software that's useful enough to them. Vote with politics doesn't really work either because regulators are very hesitant to regulate tech and kill the cash cow.
People, like me, are so fiercely loyal to Apple because seemingly no other company has been able to strongarm developers into not being shitty to their users.
> But who's to say that Apple has your interests in mind, and not their own, and makes a choice for you that is actually detrimental to you and beneficial to them? Let's say, by locking you in, and preventing any competition.
If they didn't have my interests in mind I wouldn't buy their products (which is why I don't buy any more Google products, their customers are the ad companies, not the people who buy/use their products). Companies make products for their customers with the customer's interest in mind in order to make a product that sells the best.
Sometimes you get a better deal when you have fewer options.
For example, iPhone/iPad users being unable to install Adobe Flash accelerated its demise hugely, by motivating websites to remove Flash, not just add 'please install' links.
I wonder whether people's opinions about Apple's behavior here are isomorphic to their opinions about collective bargaining writ large?
If you're the sort of person who releases iOS apps, you're far more technically inclined than the median user and perhaps more willing to engage in individual negotiation of terms of service and privacy (as you'll be plausibly good at it). The median user of an iPhone is in a hopeless bargaining position in the face of dark patterns, and for that user, perhaps the collective bargaining Apple engages in is more valuable.
- I don't think it's fair to compare Apple's position to a "collective bargaining". What they are doing is defending their moat from competing offering, they are defending one of their source of control and revenue. If there would be a bargain, who would be facing them? Developers? If Apple is in position to dictate what they want with no discussions, it's not a bargain.
- Even if other app stores are available (or sideloading, or other potential outcomes that would be more open than the current situation) Apple still control the platform, thus can still impose A LOT of what is possible or not on iOS. If they want to "protect" their users they can continue to do it at that level (there would then be a debate on what is or not considered "anti-competition" at this level)
- Regarding the difference of technical level, yes, I'm more technically inclined. On other systems (such as Android, Windows, and macOS) being more technically knowledgeable means that I can gain more control over my system and take my own decisions. In the world of iOS (potentially also in the future world of macOS), that's not even close to being a possibility.
The bargaining is between users and developers. Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users, who have accepted increasingly onerous terms and privacy policies because individual users are not in a good bargaining position. Apple, in contrast, is in a bargaining position to negotiate terms of use on behalf of its users with developers.
For example, if I purchase a subscription to a language learning app on an iOS device, my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple (via the terms of service of their payment processing system). That's valuable to me, particularly given the absurd difficulty of canceling subscriptions that are not collectively bargained like gym memberships.
How would Apple impose that same term of use, that subscriptions can be cancelled on device with one click, for a sideloaded app? If they can't do that, developers would offer their app only via sideloading so as to be able to take advantage of that stream of revenue, like gyms. Now there's less competition for language learning apps in the first party app store, and I, a user of that store, suffer.
That's not to say there aren't tradeoffs for that collective bargaining; there are. As you say, we have much less control over iOS devices than we've historically had over our computing devices. Similarly, workers who collectively bargain have much less control over their terms of employment than workers who individually negotiate. But for many workers (and many users), that tradeoff is a good one. Apple is currently the only organization offering it.
Is your gym app not available on Google store but only as a side load? Because you are imagining that because soem developers are shit then all are shit.
When I was young I could create small apps and games and share with my friends. But the future seems to be "think at the idiots that might side load malware" so our children will need to create developers accounts, provide IDs , buy certificates just to develop and share some games.
Broadly gym subscriptions aren't handled through apps. I'm assuming that there will be a tragedy of the commons, something Apple has only been moderately effective at preventing, that will reduce the quality of terms-of-service for users.
I too used to create small apps and games and share them with my friends. I still do that on a headless raspberry pi, which is a vastly superior environment than the one I had access to as a child. As the economic value of data on computers rises, I think we'll see a split between the device you use to conduct modern digital life and the device you do "old fashioned" computer stuff on. For people inclined to tinker, there will be platforms that enable that. But you won't do your banking on that platform because, as you say, idiots will side load malware. I've certainly made that split in my life (and in my classroom where we use the raspi as a teaching computer and every student has root on their own box), and it works out really well.
Now imagine my son making a small game and wants to share it with his cousin but now the cousin needs to run Linux to run code not approved by a corporation.(you need to not forget people that might not be rich and can afford many different devices).
Anyway do you have any examples (more then 1) of companies that ONLY offer side loading because they are evil and want to trick the customer (with subscriptions or to steal data).
As I’ve said, tradeoffs. The raspis I’m talking about run about $100 for a complete system. Not nothing, but accessible to many people in Apple’s target demographic. They’re ideally suited for what you’re aiming at.
One example jumps to mind - wasn’t Facebook running a side loaded VPN that was doing some unsavory things until Apple banned it? I think the place to look for that sort of thing right now would be companies abusing the enterprise development system.
Sure Apple customers have more money, but hopefully when you buy your next gadget the old one could be sold or donated to someone less wealthy.
The possible bad future I can see is this
- judge decides Apple can do whatever they want
- Google says "Great, then we can do the same" and all Android phones get locked
- Microsoft then also says thinks "Fuck, we are suckers, so they force the PC makers to DRM the computers to run only Windows and say something like "if you don't like it buy Linux"
So we will have tons of hardware that is DRMed and locked, you can run only what american companies approved and only if you have a valid user or developer accounts and maybe you need internet connection so the files are checked before you are allowed to open them.
That's a real possibility, and part of the greater tradeoff that happens with most technolgies: as they grow more powerful society applies more controls to them to prevent their ill use. Drunken horse riding is less regulated than drunken driving is less regulated than drunken nuclear submarine driving.
Happily, there's already a thriving ecosystem of alternate linux-based platforms that allow the sort of freedom that we both want and enjoy.
>my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple
Bargained for Apple's benefit, not yours.
The end result is that if you ever for any reason want to manage the subscription without an Apple device, you can't. Which directly feeds into the premium they charge you for their devices. It also means that the vendor is forced to implement Apple Payments, and the surcharge is ultimately paid by you.
You may have lost money due to subscriptions* , but you are definitely losing money to Apple.
* It's easy where I live to call the credit company and block the charge, and the credit company doesn't take 30%.
I think that you’re reversing the power dynamics. I agree with your first sentence but in a different way: bargaining should be between users and developers.
Here Apple isn’t a benevolent user collective, they have complete control over the entire pipeline, use it to force their rules on both users and developers. Epic, Spotify and others DO WANT to negotiate with their users instead of being forced by Apple. If someone is trying to negotiate, it is Epic & Co. Apple refuses any negotiation, told them repeatedly to follow their own rules. Epic thinks that there is a case to make that Apple has too much power and control and the balance should tip a bit more to developers. And that’s where we are now.
I don’t think that the collective bargaining is a good analogy, but if you want to go with this, Epic and others ARE the bargaining collective, while Apple is the mighty entity that tries to shutdown anything remotely threatening to their current business model.
> bargaining should be between users and developers
i.e. the power dynamic should be flipped so that developers have more leverage. This is the core issue. Users have little power on their own and are largely unorganized. So software that's useful to users enables developers to get away with many many abuses before large swaths of users abandon the product. Right now Apple has an extreme amount of leverage over developers and is rich enough to not even notice if they lose even large companies as publishers.
So yes, Apple has been protecting their business model, but the secondary effect is that user's have been benefiting hugely from this since Apple makes more money when users are happy.
> Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users
And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem. Developers want to be Apple, and Apple is pretty abusive towards their users. They take the occasional pro-user stance where it suits them, but overall it's pretty clear that the only institutional interest for Apple is Apple's own bottom line.
Here you're effectively defending an absolutist monarch: he can take a good decision here and there, maybe even give you a decade or two of peace and prosperity, but in the long run his family will inevitably do what is good for them, not for the country. Democracy is messy, unstable, often dangerous, but in the long run is more sustainable for the ecosystem at large.
I'd say that I'm less defending absolute monarchy, and more defending the rule of law against the Hobbesean state of nature, with all its caprice and cruelty.
For example, if Apple conducted plebiscites of its users and used those plebiscites in informing its collective bargaining with developers, I think that'd be fine. That would force Apple to articulate the value proposition of the positions it takes.
I would object less to that for sure, but you have to admit that there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening: Apple never relinquishes control. The closest to it, ironically, is to go through the actual legal system and see what judges, tasked with interpreting the people's will encoded in laws, will say. Something that they will now have to do, probably several times, until they accept that there is an easier way.
Plenty of developers love Apple ways, since the Mac classic.
And it is hardly any different from any other platform.
Classical PCs are the exception here due to IBM's failure to secure their golden eggs, had they succeed and PCs would have been just as like.
It is no surprise that with the rise of laptop and tablets, the classical desktop PC is an species facing extinction, with pizza boxes for server room being the only ones left.
I shiver to think what a IBM success "to secure their golden eggs" in the way Apple does today, would have meant for the world at large. P2P or the browser would have never been invented, you wouldn't have been allowed to install anything without IBM approving... brrr
> And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem.
This culture did not start at Apple. It has been predominant tech culture since at least the early 2000s and is absolutely pervasive in the Linux Desktop community.
Well, they have a good enough track record so far. If you feel the iPhone is unsafe, you're free to buy a different phone or not use one at all.
Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data? Apple sells the iPhone and markets it toward pro-privacy and security. Going against that is not in their own best interest. It's in Epic's interest to break through that, because then they can use dark patterns and break privacy restrictions (as other companies will and intend to do).
Again, it's no surprise that as Apple has been more user-focused and privacy-focused in their continued iPhone and iOS development that developers are feeling the squeeze when they want to use dark patterns, so naturally they'll try and break out of that so they can go back to their old bad habits again.
>Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data?
Probably because their store doesn't have to compete? I would say they really are not doing a good job at this considering their track record contains plenty of dark patterns, privacy violations, tracking, data mining, censorship, and so on. If you don't believe me I can provide plenty of examples. The situation might be marginally better than a low-end Android device that typically comes loaded with OEM malware, but that's not saying much.
I would rather that the industry adopt higher standards for itself or the government play a regulatory role (or that everyone spontaneously develops a higher level of morality and social responsibility). Putting all of our trust into one corporation, no matter how big its market cap, is just asking for a single point of failure. Not to mention, Apple can always change its attitudes toward security, and then there wouldn’t be anyone left to speak for you.
This, except unironically. I am just one person, who has no leverage whatsoever against companies using dark patterns and scamware. I like having someone with sufficient leverage fighting in my corner.
If you don't want that, that's totally fine: Android is right over there.
I would think that people who care about their privacy, would be anti anything that reminds them of totalitarianism and therefore would also not like that Apple can decide what they can install on their devices. It's curious to see that people care about their privacy/data are fine with the control Apple has over their devices.
I think that reality is more nuanced. Totalitarianism is type of government and in such a situation you have no choice over types of government so totalitarianism has no driving factor to ever work in your favor. Additionally they have control not over just your phone but your entire being which in the hierarchy of needs is significantly higher. However in a hypothetical environment where you can pick between multiple different totalitarian states and the totalitarian states have no control over your entire being (and cannot ever become so) the totalitarian states have to compete with each other to attract people to live under them.
On the privacy/data aspect, if Apple forced data to be uploaded to the cloud, I would care. If it was "privacy" where the "privacy" is protected by apple keys I wouldn't really call that privacy. However that's not what Apple does in general where it can avoid it.
For example, in the new iOS version they're adding offline language translation functionality rather than uploading your voice snipets to the cloud to translate them. This is substantially harder engineering problem than doing it in the cloud as it requires significantly more turning to run on a constrained platform like a phone. If Apple actually didn't care about privacy they'd do what basically everyone else does.
There's more to shitty app behavior than just hardware-dependent data like location, and some of the enforcement can't really be done in software. Especially when it comes to workarounds/exploiting private APIs. Right now Apple can yank an app pretty much immediately if it's found to be doing that; if the app were in an alternate App Store, a much slower OS update would be Apple's only option.
Payments also come to mind: Apple has strict standards for what you have to explain to users before you take their money. (Granted they're not always perfectly enforced.) And some of the terms (like easy, clear cancellation) are enforced simply by the fact that you must use Apple's payment system. With another App Store, that goes out the window.
Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have? Because the alternative to what Epic want (so the current situation) isn't a completely open platform but one where Apple is the only boss and can do almost whatever they want. Having more bosses in competition for parts of the market is an improvement toward a more open system.
We've seen on Android that the practical effects of competing app stores are basically zero. There's too much advantage to controlling the OS and being the default. Epic getting a store on iOS is likely to be a moral victory at best.
The effective solution is stopping dominance in one area from spilling over into another. Can't use iOS control to gain control of app sales and you can't use control of app sales to gain control of payments.
The fact that F-Droid exists is a huge deal. Yeah, not everyone uses it. There isn't an app for everything (by design) but the apps are way more trustworthy than anything you can get out of the iOS or Android stores.
Let’s say competing app stores won’t be used. Then why is it an issue for Apple to allow them, given that they know they would still be the default and have the advantage? Apple is in this situation at where control the platform completely, and could have the default store. But somehow that’s not enough for them to consider opening the app market a little bit.
Using that reasoning, they are in the best position to actually open to competition.
Google has been closing down Android with each release exactly because that gets abused.
To the point that Linux fans that keep pointing to Android as "Desktop Linux" miss the point that no Linux APIs are part of official Android APIs and depending on the Android version, apps get killed when trying to be smart reaching for private APIs.
> Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have?
I think Epic getting what they want will slowly hollow out the available market for smaller indie developers who can't compete with with the scale of the big boys. Insofar as Apple's app store falls short, it's often in the various ways it fails at providing a truly even playing field between Joe Random and the Amazons and Epics of the world. Take the Apple intermediation out of it and the big stores can bring the strength of their reputations and the scale of their logistical capabilities to bear in ways that will make it much more difficult for small, independent developers to thrive.
You can see it in comparing the iOS app economy to the Android one. Even though the vast majority of app installs in Android come through the Play store, the more lax standards and availability of sideloading seems to make people much less trustful of anything they get and, consequently, much less likely to spend any money.
I think it will just offer alternative places where you might get attention that you otherwise wouldn't. Apple already has extremely restrictive and garbage discovery mechanisms on the App Store, and up until now has squashed all app-based attempts to make it better or provide an alternative discovery mechanism.
If alternatives were allowed to exist, those stores could be built with better discovery mechanisms or allow a smaller pond where you might be able to be the big fish.
As opposed to a vast ocean (App Store) where you've got to be damn lucky or have major connections to be anything more than a minnow as an independent.
Android phones come with multiple stores, you can side load apps and you could launch your own store any time you like. You could launch a new phone without the Google Play store, such phones exist anyway though.
The plain fact is that isn't what the vast majority of customers want. They have time and again showed that what they want is one place where they can all get their apps, and that will also be on their next phone. Google didn't decide that for them, nor did Samsung which has it's own store on it's phones. It's what customers want and have chosen, whether you like that or not.
Yes Google used unsavoury practices, they ran afoul of the EU and were fined Billions, but that's a footnote. We'd be where we are anyway, and stoping those anticompetitive practices hasn't slowed down the consolidation because this is driven by user preference.
This. Actions speak louder than words and Epic's anti-Linux actions with their store are extremely telling that their rhetoric about supporting open platforms is purely self-serving.
Valve has had a lot more Linux support, but it seems like they just want Steam to be "Google Play Services" for desktop Linux. GPL software can't even communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the open source community and ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be part of Steam's extensive gaming social network, into serfs for the store.
Huh? In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services on Android?
Steam on Linux is mostly compatibility hacks so people can play the games they bought. Some games have decent Linux support, but the real value I see in Steam on Linux is all the proton/wine magic/hacks to make games work relatively well without any changes, and frankly it's great.
The rate at which Wine/Proton et al., and Linux gaming in general, has improved in the last few years is staggering.
> GPL software can't even communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the open source community and ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be part of Steam's extensive gaming social network, into serfs for the store.
I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has to do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam which uses all of Valve's features.
> In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services on Android?
Steamworks.
> I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has to do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam which uses all of Valve's features.
Steamworks is needed for that and isn't GPL compatible. You can sell GPL software on Steam, but can't use many features and are isolated from most social/friend stuff.
> Which Open Source licenses are compatible with the Steamworks SDK?
In general, permissive licenses that do not put any requirements on you to redistribute your modifications under an open source license work fine.
This is borderline FUD. You don't need to use Steamworks to publish a Steam game. With respect to games, most commercial licenses also have these same restrictions, e.g. Unreal Engine.
This seems fine, GPL is probably not suitable here. I don't think Valve is going out of their way to harm anyone's freedoms.
If you really want to release your game as GPL, then do the usual workarounds: use a shim which RPC's to the proprietary bit.
Not current numbers but some old projections put 2020 projected android users would be around 127 million users in US. iOS projected 110 million in 2021 in US. Does 50% market share when achieved even equal a monopoly?
The switching cost between launchers on PC is negligible, compared to phones where it's a massive undertaking. That said, in the context of user freedoms I think it's fair to not support Epic (in part, for their actions towards exclusive games) at the same time as supporting Epic (in part, for their actions on mobile platforms).
I don't think it is. While I may agree with the goal of open platforms, I don't for one moment believe that Epic cares at all about that goal and I do not believe their method of intentionally violating TOS and using propaganda to direct a raging horde of children at Apple is the right way to go about it.
It's funny that people gang up on Epic Game Store exclusives when Steam has been doing exclusives for over a decade. Not only Valve games, but almost every AAA game that isn't made by Ubisoft or EA is basically just a code to unlock the game on Steam. You need to run all the updates through Steam, microtransactions through Steam, start the game each time by Steam. You can't live without Steam for most AAA games.
That's on the companies making those games, Valve doesn't pay them for exclusives and even allows developers to sell Steam keys on other storefronts without taking a cut.
No sane app development business would do this when half of their potential customers are on an iPhone.
I'd rather vote in legislators that will maintain the existing laws of the land, which state that you can't use your Apple-sized market power to keep competitors from doing business.
They're trying to establish a precedent that would limit all monopolistic behaviour, including theirs. Obviously their motivations are to make it easier for them to compete, but it won't make it easier for them to become a monopoly.
What part of the law forces companies to sell things they don’t want to? Or to force the creation of a retail marketplace on their own ecosystem?
It will likely require a new legislation to force the regulation of App Stores as public utilities.
Violating the Sherman act requires demonstration of monopoly or restraint of trade. Any ISV has many channels and platforms with which to sell its wares, so this will be hard to prove. Asking for a retail cut % isn’t restraint of trade.
The ISVs like Epic want more profit for themselves by forcing the regulation of app stores as public utilities, so that like a power generation company, they can compete separately from the distribution system. That is a tall order to prove that it’s more in the public interest than in the ISV’s interest.
If you've read the law, you'll note that you are not required to have a monopoly to fall afoul of the antitrust laws. The usual proviso is along the lines of "X is prohibited where the effect of X is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." (see, e.g., 15 USC §13).
If your customers made a choice to choose a platform with a highly-controlled walled garden as the only means of installing software then you should respect that and either adhere to the terms of said garden or not enter that market.
You're thinking like a company that cold calls people on the do-not-call registry or something.
This assumes people buying Apple devices did it because they want a walled garden. I don't think that's true, I think it's the opposite. Most users dislike it.
Obtuse example: I think the vast majority of Fortnite players would have (much) preferred to pay Epic's cheaper rate.
Doesn't matter, the behaviour is still monopolistic, but even if we cede that point it's absolutely a duopoly. Fortnite is also banned on Google play, they've lost access to over 90% of the mobile market. The Sherman Act isn't about being a monopoly, it's about exploiting an unfair degree of leverage.
But either way that's not my point. Epic establishing a precedent that restricts the degree to which companies can dominate a supply line and then use that position to skim isn't going to make it easier for Epic to dominate you, the consumer. That's not their objective. That is Apple's objective.
They absolutely do have standing. 15 U.S.C. §15 allows for injured parties of anti-trust violation to sue for treble damages. This is separate to and beyond any criminal charges the DOJ can bring.
If courts determine that Apples behavior violates anti-trust laws, it is unlikely that they would find that Epic was not an injured party.
I find a lot of the comments here split down “I want app regulation because I feel it provides a layer of safety and safety is good for the consumer” vs “I want more freedom and choice because choice is good and is better for the consumer”. Which brings to mind two things
This sounds similar to the current brouhaha happening in the US over America’s inclination towards personal freedom at all cost even when govt regulation could/should step in the make things better.
A concern that once “freedom of choice of App Store” is provided, where does it stop because ultimately those demanding choice will keep demanding aspects be “open up” “for fairness” until iOS isn’t special anymore. Part of what makes it special _is_ it’s regulation, if you don’t want that then “choose” elsewhere. This aspect feels like the problem in the US of big business battling for deregulation which... isn’t always so great.
I’m not saying “Apple is doing it for the people!”, necessarily but Apple is doing it to be Apple, let’s not make everything the same.
“Apple is doing it to be Apple” is my understanding as well. As a developer, I understand the terms before making business decisions. As a consumer, I buy a product as advertised. What I hope for in both cases is consistency. I want Apple to keep being Apple, for better or for worse, because my decisions were based on that constant. Epic wants Apple to not be Apple. I’m not sure if I want Epic’s Apple.
There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized. If apple had been reasonable we wouldn't be having this discussion. Apple has shown it can no longer reasonably regulate its own market and will not be the Shepard. Their significant efforts of verticle integration from hardware to software shows their inclination to creating walled garden markets that compete at the economy of scale and are designed to eliminate competition.
No company is allowed to control a market of other companies without oversight. Given that oversight from apple is corrupted it must be provided in other means.
Duopolized. The rest of the argument still holds, and a weaker form of it holds for Google as well, since stores like F-Droid can't do everything that Google Play can.
> This aspect feels like the problem in the US of big business battling for deregulation which... isn’t always so great.
Big businesses actually battle for narrow carveouts of existing regulations along with the addition of more regulations that are easy for them to handle but hard for newer entrants to handle. Big businesses actually like regulations as long as they're carefully crafted to already match whatever outdated practices they're already following, to hamper competition. Most of this has already happened in the past which is why we have companies like Boeing now who cannot innovate anymore.
Part of the problem is that Apple makes a number of choices in its approval process that are either 1. arbitrary, 2. preferential, or 3. actively counterproductive to security/privacy. And when asked about it, they lie in front of Congress. So perhaps this would be less of an issue if they didn't do that?
The current level of "regulation" in iOS is very bad for society, so of course I want it to not be "special" any more. When you have the level of power that Apple does in society, different rules apply.
Well if you ask a smart person to rationalize their relationship with a drug, their smart phone, they will say something logical and positivist, in a world where your opinion about how a giant corporation screws another doesn't really matter.
So it's not really comparable to partisan politics in the US. You could be right that people are conditioned to talk about things a certain way due to partisanship, but I really doubt that's why there's so many people out their taking Apple's side in a contract spat.
Nonetheless some people have this drug relationship with Fox News. But while very few people on HN may even use Android phones, 100% of congress probably uses an iPhone. They probably use their iPhone ~4 hours a day. 0% use Fortnite (the average congressman probably plays less than 1 minute of Fortnite on average a day).
Can anyone explain exactly how Apple "blocks" Unreal Engine? I was under the impression that it's a 3rd-party library, available directly from Epic, that anybody is free to link their game to. So I'm struggling to understand the mechanism by which Apple blocks it. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.
Epic needs access to Apple's developer tools and documentation to continue developing the Unreal Engine software and libraries for macOS and iOS.
Without access to those things, it would be difficult for Epic to produce new versions of the Unreal Engine, and game developers wouldn't want to use it any more.
Yes but any developer can have his or her own account that gives access to every tool, only for pushing software to the store it's vital to have that one particular account for Epic. Epic will lose perks like direct access to performance tuning teams at Apple, but that's not something you can't do without.
So "difficult" would mean that you need to improvise a bit, but they're still able to develop just like any developer. If you want to put your own cocoapod out, you don't need a developer license to do so and if someone else wants to use your cocoapod they just need their own developer account.
Legally Epic would lose access to all Apple developer IP including iOS SDKs and Xcode. You have to click through an EULA to access this stuff. And you can bet that Apple would have sought a court order to enforce it, had they prevailed.
Just a note, this isn't past tense. The court case is only beginning. This was only about the initial injunction. The court just told Apple and Epic "cool it, stop fighting each other in public and harming your customers, fight each other in court".
they revoked Epic's developer account. if Epic is restricted from getting the tools needed to further develop Unreal Engine, that effectively prevents Epic from doing further development on it.
While you can download Xcode with just a regular Apple ID, you can't really test your code on an iOS device without an Apple developer account, so the usefulness would be limited.
I have to use my own developer account basically every time I build an app for a customer until they got around to either inviting me to their team or creating their personal developer account.
Unless Epic is filled with developers that never ever launched their own application not being part of the Epic developer account is an annoyance (and a familiar one for most iOS developers) at most.
You don't need to deploy an SDK the only thing you would deploy are test builds of games that use the updated SDK.
It is, but it is quite limited. I don't think you can really "distribute" your app in any meaningful sense of the word, and you also have to reinstall it every seven days.
If I write an app that includes the Facebook SDK, that doesn't mean that Facebook is involved with submitting my app.
As long as my developer account is valid, Facebook's account doesn't enter the equation when I am submitting an app that includes their SDK in any way I can see.
I'm likely looking at this from a narrow case but how does the Facebook SDK scenario related to the question you asked?
Did I misinterpret your original statement to mean how would the closure of Epic's Apple Developer account impact others (with their own valid Apple Developer accounts) from using their engine within an app they published to the App store?
I understood your question to be "why do I (an app developer) need an Apple Developer account?" A second reading and your response leads me to believe otherwise.
>how would the closure of Epic's Apple Developer account impact others (with their own valid Apple Developer accounts) from using their engine within an app they published to the App store
Correct. My understanding of the situation is that developers who include third party code in their app do not involve the author of that third party code when submitting their own app.
I used the Facebook SDK as a frequently seen example of third party code that is included within iOS apps as they are submitted to the App Store.
Just because you can download and run software doesn't mean you have the legal right to use it. The right to use software is granted via an end user license agreement, and that right can be revoked.
In other words, it's a legal restriction, not a technical one.
It would be nice if everyone could start by agreeing that that there's actually a nuanced discussion to be had about how "anti-competitive" a company can be, and also how that answer might change based on the size and profitability of the company under discussion. If your position is that your opinion is absolutely correct and there's no room for discussion, why post at all? It's just ideological battle.
With that said, I am naturally inclined to believe that businesses should have a lot of control over the products they create. My baseline is that I want to be as unencumbered as possible in my product vision and the experience I offer my users, and I'd like minimal government restrictions on my desired UX unless consumers' physical health or safety is on the line.
I see the choice of how third parties should be able to create and sell code that runs on a platform I have created as sacrosanct, from the drawing board, up to the day the first unit is shipped, the developer gets to decide. As my code is my own written word, it is akin to my First Amendment right to free speech. However, I'm willing to accept that somewhere along the journey from that very first prototype, to the 1,000,000,000th unit shipped, the equation shifts.
Most products, that is to say non-open source software, by their very nature, are non-trivially anti-competitive in some way. It is the same thing to say that the product is differentiated. I have a BA in Economics, but I'm a long time out of school, so I may be clobbering this definition, but "a product is differentiated in the marketplace to the extend that a product has a feature or benefit or functionality that is not equivalently provided by every other substitute in that market." In order for a product to remain differentiated, it therefore must be non-trivially "anti-competitive". Maybe it makes sense to dive into the definition of that word more deeply, but I don't want to waste your time. My point is simply that "anti-competitive" is synonymous with any market that is not perfectly commoditized. Hopefully it's uncontroversial to claim that "anti-competitive" is not fundamentally bad per se.
It's well recognized that anti-competitive behavior which at one scale is fundamental to a diverse marketplace of products and services which drives innovation, value, and consumer choice, at another scale is used to lock-out potential new market entrants, and enable excessive profitability or rent-seeking behavior. The words "monopoly" and "duopoly" usefully describes the ultimate/penultimate theoretical states of such a market, but they don't adequately describe that various ways we can approach such a limit in the real world. Apple is not a monopoly, but that does not mean that there should not perhaps be elevated limits on acceptable anti-competitive behavior on their part based on the specific facts of their market position.
I think it is also self-evident that it is an extraordinary remedy to judicially limit anti-competitive behavior targeted at a specific company in a competitive market. Indeed when we enjoin a company from making their products function in ways that are quite central to that product's highly differentiated user experience, yes it may grant choice to some customers of that product to operate it in new ways, it is also taking choice away from customers who may have chosen the product for exactly the functionality being target. This to me is an extremely heavy handed remedy, and should only be deployed against a company if it is absolutely warranted based on unlawful conduct by that company.
While the case before the judge today was simply a preliminary hearing on a injunction, and therefore not by any means a ruling on the fundamental issue, we can see this balancing act being employed in the current case. The contract that Epic willingly entered into with Apple and willingly violated is placed in one corner (blocking Fortnite) while the separate contract(s) of developers using Epic's Unreal Engine is placed in another corner. All we know today is that this judge was not willing to allow Apple to retaliate against the violating of one contract by withdrawing from the others, and that the judge was not willing to stop Apple from terminating the first contract after it was willfully violated by Epic. The larger discussion will likely take years to play out.
I think part of the reason why this case is so polarizing is that it ties in to unrelated issues like right-to-repair and consumer freedom.
As things stand, the owner of an iOS device doesn't have the final say on what software runs on their device; they can only install apps that Apple allows them to. There are some who would consider that to be wrong regardless of Apple's size or place in the overall market, even though that's not really what this case is about.
If Apple wanted (and they probably are doing it) they could heavily delay the approval of any apps that make use of an engine they seem "risky"... Effectively increasing the costs of those developers using "rogue" engines.
Is the fact that epic has its own store on desktop, where they also take a cut, and also do not allow games to bypass their payment system relevant if this goes to trial?
It seems a bit hypocritical even if the percent is lower
I'm not sure if Epic requires you to use their payment processor for IAPs, but even if they do it's not hypocritical in the slightest. The Epic Store isn't the only realistic way to sell a game/app/whatever on PC. That's the issue here - not that the store takes a cut, but that if you don't like the cut you have absolutely no way to try and go with an alternative.
If I don't like the cut Epic takes in their store I can go with Steam. Or gog.com. Or itch.io. Or sell things myself on my own website. If I don't like the cut Apple takes in their store on iOS I can go with... nothing.
Two points-
(1) Presumably Apple wanted to try to send a very quick message to others to not try to make similar moves (and to reassure other developers that Epic wasn't getting a special deal) instead of waiting 30 days.
(2) I've said this before and it's important to understand this: just because a contract says Apple can do something (terminate the contract with Unreal Engine), that does not mean they can do it. If that were the case, the entire field of Contract Law need not exist.
You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games?
I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille.
I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.
> I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court.
I wouldn’t, because they’d be crushed. I’d rather that if someone takes Apple to court, it’s someone with the resources to make a dent.
> I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille.
Even if you think they’re equivalent, the difference is the former is taking an action that—even if for selfish reasons—can have a positive impact on independent developers.
Epic “we want to sell useless virtual goods with 0 marginal cost” or
BaseCamp - “we run a small business, pay our employees well, always sought to be profitable instead of VC funding, etc.”
Everybody eats up the small business angle. Besides DHH is a lot less slimy than anyone who Epic parades out.
If they started a GoFundMe, I would donate to their legal defense. What Epic wants will probably never happen. What BaseCamp wants - just basically to be treated like Netflix and the other “reader apps” is much more realistic and it’s fair to the actual indy developers of cross platform useful apps who could do their own marketing.
So it’s better to have yet another avenue for shady developers to take advantage of “whales” via loot boxes and in game consumables - the very thing that the government is going after?
What jury is going to care that Epic can’t sell useless virtual currency and make a larger profit?
If Epic can make phones more open first, and then later the government regulates loot and pay-to-win like gambling is already regulated, then isn't that a win for the public?
Not if the same public has to deal with the same insecurity and vulnerabilities that iOS was designed to prevent.
Only geeks care about “openness”, ordinary people don’t have a problem with any app that Apple is blocking besides probably MS’s streaming game system.
Epic itself released a buggy installer that caused a security vulnerability. Do you really want them to be the poster child?
Out of all the problems that the App Store has. There are other options that would be better for the average consumer and better for the developer.
1. 30% is way too high for any service or app that has marginal cost. If Apple is going to force in app payments as option for those types of apps, it should allow Apple Pay (standard credit card processing fees $0.30 per transaction + 2-3%)
2. Any productivity app should be allowed to have the same “reader app” exemption.
3. I would be okay if any app that has out of store payments not showing up in the store unless the user specifically searches for it by name or navigates via an external link. That means Apple had nothing to do with app discovery.
4. Non game apps that are subscription based start off at 15%
5. Allow upgrade pricing.
6. Allow a scaling percentage. The more you bring Apple, the less of a percentage you take.
7. Any game that only has a one time in app purchase to unlock the game from demo to full version should be able to pay a lower percentage. This is what Apple should be encouraging.
Mix and match any of these suggestions. They are more fair to developers.
Trust me, Apple does not care. When a company or government with centralized management like that makes a blow-it move, there is an army of people in place to reinforce their decision and attack everyone in opposition so as to maintain their own sense of self worth. You can’t bargain with that.
HTML5 and WASM —and since you will need one for testing anyway, a Pixel 5/4a, S20 Ultra or Note S20 could be fun for learning Android.
B/c in that case Apple would be doing what the haters erroneously claim they do now: making 100% arbitrary/capricious decisions when it comes to the App Store walled garden.
As those of us who target iOS know, they're not transparent, but it's not arbitrary. Thank god. We'd never hear the end of unsolicited opinions about the Touch Bar and HN's annual subscription to the year of desktop Linux.
No, they justify ruining some developers based on some criteria that they then justify with the logic that (a) the developer wouldn’t have had any money if it weren’t for Apple to begin with and (b) they “care so deeply” for the Apple “users” that they can’t allow the developer’s life work (or livelihood) to exist and make any kind of unpleasantness available for consumers to choose.
They don't. All subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year so Apple is just counting the existing time where they were figuring out the process. That still applies to everyone, not just Amazon.
You can see their calculating ways if you look carefully —can’t have too many fart apps you know, too many fart apps are bad for the user. Nevermind if you have the best fart app ever —you can’t even load it on your friends’ phones or show it to the guy deciding whether or not to give you a scholarship because, you know, a prick in Cupertino who has his own reality that’s pretty far removed from the rest if the world thinks that too many fart apps are an unpleasant experience for all one billion potential fart app users.
Yea silly, but the type of app doesn’t matter when considering questions of “arbitrary” consideration.
Because, let's be honest, Apple doesn't want to set a precedent that they'll do that without first trying to resolve issues with developers. It's a super bad look for them to just immediately terminate any agreement they have issue with and would just push developers away from attempting development on the platform. Apple has all the leverage in this situation and a ton of good will built up among developers. They want to give Epic a chance to admit wrongdoing and resolve the issue.
The reason is in the document, simply, because while the case is ongoing the judge wants to decrease, not increase, the difficulty in calculating damages.
Just wow: Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free.
Plus the more or less: why is this an emergency when you decided yourself when to violate the agreement?
Change My Mind - I currently agree with Apple's strategy with blocking Unreal Engine. Why is it that a big company (like Epic) thinks it's no longer subject to the Apple Tax while us small guys thrive with the platform for which we wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple. Are we all subject to the same cycle if we "make it", we'll buck against the 30% cut and bite the hand that fed us. This is bad business, it's going to create a stronger reaction by Apple that will only hurt the smaller guys. Plus is Epic doing anything to help us smaller developers in the mean time besides wasting money in a court system? Are they creating a fund for us help bridge us to a different system if their appeal fails? So please let me know your opinion, and if I'm wrong, please let me know why.
> We wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple
Is that worth 30% till the end of time? Your argument is like crabs in a bucket -- one crab tries to get a better deal and you pull him down because you have to pay.
Lets say, somehow, Epic manages to get that fee lowered to something more reasonable for everyone. Would you not be happy with that?
This is the crux of the matter: is it anticompetitive to setup an ecosystem where you always get a cut?
Generally, historically, no, this is not anticompetitive, especially given there is another ecosystem with far more market share (but maybe not profitability because more people spend money on iOS apps). Inserting yourself to take a cut for a service or a key component is good business practice, and built the empires that every student in business school or in tech entrepreneurship is taught to emulate. So long as the wealth pie grows, it isn’t rent seeking to keep taking your cut.
What amazes me is that people think iOS and Apple (and even Android and Google) are near-permanent fixtures that should be regulated as utilities, rather than a temporary incumbent that will eventually be disrupted as the world changes.
Microsoft’s reign of dictating terms to ISVs a lasted around 20 years. They’re still incredibly profitable and still take a cut of almost every PC sale (or XBox game / movie / tv show sale). They don’t have the clout they used to because the tech changed.
At some point, new things will come, such as AR/VR, and we may see companies such as Valve and Oculus/Facebook become the new tech ecosystem dictators. The winner takes all dynamics of platforms seem to make this inevitable. Why enshrine Apple and Google as utilities now, when they’ll be less relevant in 10 years?
What's more scary is not that a single company or group of companies will be a permanent fixture but rather that this model of computing will be permanent!
If you would have told me 20 years ago that the creator of an operating system would take a 30% cut of every piece of software sold, I would have thought you crazy. If you would have told me Apple or Microsoft would dictate to me what software I could run, I would have considered that a massive invasion of freedom. But today this model is considered totally normal and encouraged.
We aren't seeing other companies competing with this model on price or freedom -- we see companies wanting to enforce their own control and get their own 30% cut. Microsoft has tried it. Google is doing it. Oculus does it. Apple will certainly bring it MacOS.
As software developers and users, is that really what we want?
As software users, we definitely have voted with our wallets to say that properly executed vertical integration (As Apple has done), and the end to end UX control that comes with it, are highly desirable. The iPhone is arguably (and surprisingly) the most successful non-food/drug product line in human history by unit sales, revenue, or profits. The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug. The user experience and security of the horizontally open market PC was pretty bad until Microsoft was forced to invest.
As ISVs, clearly there are major downsides to this state of affairs. But I’m not sure I wish for the days where Microsoft reigned and would just put you out of business on a whim.
I don’t think Microsoft’s antitrust consent decree had as much of an impact as some think, it was more about entrepreneurship and new tech (largely the iPhone! But also Amazon, Facebook, and Google) that reduced their clout.
I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS; you can’t put genies back into bottles.
> The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug.
The only feature I can see for this is making Apple a multi-trillion dollar company. Apple is profiting massively off of our labor and yes, we have been so far happy to give that to them, but perhaps now is the time to revisit that relationship.
With Apple abusing their control to deny access to cloud gaming maybe this success is a Faustian deal.
> I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS
I think it will be a function of going to Apple silicon.
Is it better if Apple is accountable to nobody, or is it better if Apple is held accountable by a few businesses that can afford excellent lawyers?
Besides, the issue here isn't that Epic doesn't think the Apple rules don't apply to them. They want to raise attention to how unfair the rules are, in the hope of getting Apple to change their stance either voluntary or through the court system. I think too much money is at play here for Apple to make any voluntary concessions here, but even if Apple wins (likely outcome) a track record of being sued for unfair business practices will hopefully benefit everybody in Apple's ecosystem in the long term.
Here's a PDF of the ruling, I think it's worth reading: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...