You are not. If Epic wins kiss free App Store apps goodbye as Apple will surely charge everyone to put things in their store. After all neither Walmart nor Amazon allows you to sell your products there and give them 0%. I see no economic difference, a store is a store; storekeepers are allowed to make money with your products. Just because it's a pile of bits makes no difference.
If I want to sell art in a gallery, the gallery probably takes 50%; sure I could sell it online, but no one will see it, whereas the gallery brings customers to the art.
Epic wants profit without cost at Apple's expense, and if Apple if forced to accept this, then everyone else will suffer, except Epic.
You could make an argument that 30% is too high, but it's not a binary choice, 30% vs 0%. Epic thinks that it is.
I think you're sort of wrong here. Epic would likely be just fine with sideloading Fortnite and handling the distribution themselves (like they did with Android). What they're contesting is that only Apple is allowed to sell software on the phone, and in doing so also collects 30% of the cost. Apple could just get out of the way but chooses not to.
Okay but here's the thing. Such a change is good for the app publisher at the expense of the customer except in some vague second order effect about improbable price improvement.
Right now you have no choice but to buy Fortnite on the App Store. In the future you will have no choice but to buy Fortnite on the Epic Games Store. Customers don't really gain anything here.
I'm sympathetic to the whole software freedom angle and that end-users should be able to run whatever they want on their devices unrestricted but I could care less about publishers wanting to get around Apple's platform fees and store rules which for all their flaws genuinely benefit me as a user.
Like it sucks that it took total control, thousands of human reviewers and an iron fist to keep companies from getting away from bright line screwing over their customers but here we are.
You are ignoring the world of products that Apple prevents using their control over the App Store, which they absolutely do use to exclude or hobble competitors and stifle controversy (such as how they have pulled multiple apps that were commentary about smartphones being made in sweatshops). Apple is already past the "live long enough to become the villain" half of "you either die a hero or". The anticompetitive effects of having a duopoly--both of whom being interested in complete vertical integration--in control over all software distribution is devastating, and it isn't just some improbable/vague second order effect (which is also a ridiculous assertion even for price improvements: there are tons of products that are having to charge more only because of Apple... mine is one of them! it really depends on the app's sales mechanism whether 30% is fair or not, and this is coming from someone who has run a successful competitor to Apple on their own platform, despite the users having to be rabid for it due to how many hurdles they had to jump... before Apple finally "won" :/).
If so, many thanks to you for your labor of love. I have been jailbreaking iPhones since 2012 with your help. I'm sorry that the corporate structure railroaded you.
Epic can just offer their app in both Apple's store and its own store. It's just that Apple store prices will be higher according to Apple's commissions. If you like convenience of only using Apple's payment services, who's stopping you from buying it in App Store with higher prices?
If Apple rejects the app from being available in its store, then again that doesn't affect you because you want to use only Apple approved apps anyway.
That’s for an enterprise account, used for internal release apps (not test!). Enterprise accounts are often misused by companies that just want to abuse the device provision list, it’s not required.
I’ve built widely downloaded apps for companies, featured in the App Store, with a small team of devs sharing one standard $100 account.
>If Epic wins kiss free App Store apps goodbye as Apple will surely charge everyone to put things in their store
The goal here isn't to remove the 30%, it's to give the option for someone to develop an alternative way to host their apps, typically by use of their own store.
As we see on Android and even PC: many, many, many developers are fine paying 30% for that visibility, even if FreeDroid or Itch.io will let them keep 100% of their profits. This won't change much except for the billionaire companies who have the capacity to advertise themselves and deem 30% too much.
If Epic wins I would gladly pay Apple for access to the app store. Apple’s review process and the standards they implement provide a lot of value to me. My fear if Epic wins is the iPhone app store becoming like the Mac app store: mostly empty. Because if there’s a way to escape compliance with Apple’s standards and still distribute your app then many developers will take the easy road.
You reply hints at these <issues> when you allow developers to distribute their software but doesn't give any specifics. What is your specific issue with how app distribution works on macOS? Are you running into low quality software that you purchased that's full of malware?
I enjoy the freedom of going to a repository and building or download a binary without having to use Apple's centralized system. I like paying the developer directly if you want. I've done it with 1Password and other applications. They're high quality software.
So you are saying that App store provides so little value to developers that nobody will want to use it unless they are forced to do so? Maybe once Apple faces competition, they will have to improve their store and attract developers by offering a better experience?
I have been an iOS developer for more than a decade and I will never buy another brand of phone unless Apple manages to ruin the ecosystem.
I want Epic to win. Devs should be able to distribute their apps to consumers without Apple dictating style guidelines or which features are/aren't allowed on a general purpose computer. The iPhone and iPad are general purpose computers and Apple wants to pretend they are not.
I've shipped a ton of (legit, non-spam, useful, popular) apps over the years, but there are 2 I was never allowed to ship simply because they didn't fit in to Apple's rules... which were not even explicit, it tooks several rounds of review feedback to land at the final rejection.
Once that happened it made me wonder just how many products out there simply aren't allowed to exist or are intentionally handicapped because Apple said so. We should work to end it.
As someone who has jailbroken almost every iPhone I've owned I am very familiar with whole categories of apps that can't be distributed through the App Store. That said, how do you handle the FB's of the world or other bad actors who will (ab)use private API's if they no longer have to follow Apple's rules?
I could see Apple offering a new entitlement for payment processing, maybe with defined endpoints for canceling/managing subscriptions but 3rd party app stores open a whole can of worms. Can Apple lock down their private API's? Maybe, but I feel that will lead to a cat and mouse game where apps have lots of code testing to see what they can reach out and access on the OS version they are installed on. Sure, the FB through the official App Store won't be doing that but the FB distributed through Facebook's own App Store will. We've already seen what FB will do when given unchecked ability to distribute apps (see Onavo, FB's VPN to spy on users). Do you really think that end users will care that they installed an app through a seedy 3rd party app store? No, they will blame Apple if their data is stolen/privacy invaded.
I can already see the "promos" apps like FB or scummy games will run to get you to install them via some app store which isn't vetting the apps. "300 free coins if you install via AppStorez".
> they will blame Apple if their data is stolen/privacy invaded
This is something that happens currently because Apple has decided they are the sole distributor of apps, with their explicit approval implying that the app is good and wholesome.
I think you only need to look to Windows and macOS users to understand that people don't hold the platform fully responsible, and rightfully so.
> Do you really think that end users will care that they installed an app through a seedy 3rd party app store?
Apple certainly will care, and they can and have rejected signing certs on Mac. For better or worse (Apple still having final say on what constitutes malware), I think this is fine (for now).
> Can Apple lock down their private API's? Maybe, but I feel that will lead to a cat and mouse game where apps have lots of code testing to see what they can reach out and access on the OS version they are installed on.
Yeah, sounds great. Look at where Windows security is compared to 10 years ago. Things get better over time and that only comes through testing the limits.
Apple has a lot of money and they can certainly hire the experts to work on these hard problems.
>That said, how do you handle the FB's of the world or other bad actors who will (ab)use private API's if they no longer have to follow Apple's rules?
how does Google or Windows handle it? This idea isn't novel, and there are billions already spent on antivirus initiatives, regardless of how open or closed the platform is.
I wouldn't be surprised if people blamed Google for a variety of things they downloaded on Chrome or an android device, but I haven't heard much traction being gained on how responsible google is for what users download from the internet.
I want Epic to win.
It's fine if you want to have Apple as an option.
It's not fine to have Apple as the only option. Apple should either allow 3rd party IAPs or 3rd party app stores. Having neither is Apple abusing it's power and forcing it on consumers.
You've made some statements there but provided no context. Why is it a bad thing? I've been on the platform since 2007 - the App Store has been around since 2008. To date, I have had exactly 0 issues. Annecdata for sure, but I'm clearly not the only one to have this experience.
I feel I could flip the question around, why is it a bad thing that users can use other sources to retrieve and download apps? This is already the default line of thinking with a PC.
Most people will not be taking advantage of this option; many won't download outside the IOS store, and many companies won't make a new storefront to get around 30%. because hosting a storefront is expensive. Fortnite took themselves off Google play and they likely lost a lot of sales. But that's on them to decide.
Why is it a bad thing to give a dev a choice of hosting powers? If you don't, they find loopholes that inconvenience the user regardless. e.g. you cannot sign up for Spotify or Netflix through your IOS device.
But you can just buy an android. What you can’t do, is break Apple and then still have an Apple option for those of us who really don’t want an android phone.
This is a false dichotomy - you don't have to choose between a locked-down walled garden and a chaotic free-for-all. There is a lot of space in-between.
Who is responsible for issues caused by Epic's store? What are the ramifications from an API point of view? Will having another store change the limitiations imposed on what can or can't be done? If so, people already have a choice - Android.
Another reply said "censor" which implies speech, but Apple's rejections can be more fundamental.
Have an app you want to ship? Apple gets to decide whether you meet "minimum functionality requirements". You cannot distribute your app to paying consumers without their approval.
Doing something truly unique, perhaps with some hardware in the phone? Apple may decide they simply do not want this feature in an app on the App Store. Which means you cannot distribute your app to consumers.
I'm less concerned about having other "stores," I just want a way to buy apps from legit developers that don't involve Apple dictating look and feel and entire feature sets.
You know, the same way I can purchase and run software on a Mac without Apple being involved in the transaction.
Apple's rules are completely arbituary, so many apps simply don't exist due to vague guidelines. There are zero 4chan apps on the app store, but a dozen reddit apps (which is ironic given recent news over there). There are dozens of these odd edge cases based on Apple's whimsy that just means there are zero IOS options for what Android has dozens of, even before getting into "obviously" banned content like adult apps and piracy.
So while a few (like, literally 5-10) blockbuster game companies may take the PC launcher route if this wins, there are several smaller time apps that can benefit form this if the app store wasn't the only source of downloading here.
The option to install applications that are censored by the the Default App Store for whatever reason.
Plus, this case probably has pretty far reaching implications on the future of computing. If Apple is allowed to lock down their phones & tables, can they do so with Mac OSX? If Apple can do so with OSX, can Microsoft do the same and lock down Windows to prevent apps from being installed outside of their App Store?
If Microsoft can lock down Windows like iOS/OSX, can Dell lock down their servers to prevent other operating systems from being installed?
Being able to have Microsoft XCloud (and other cloud gaming) as a native app instead of forced to only have the Apple games/arcade.
This is one example of a completely legitimate scenario in a very popular entertainment category and yet it's blocked because of Apple's arbitrary rules of what you can do on your own device.
It still has to run on the IPhone and ask for location, ad ID, etc. from iOS. Where the app comes from doesn't change that it must make the same system calls as everything else.
All apps on iOS need to pass App Store review, which means all apps that integrate third-party SDKs need to ensure those SDKs don't violate App Store policies, including policies on fingerprinting. Apple has already started to deny approval of apps using third-party SDKs that violate user tracking policies on iOS 14.
Of course you can. You're entirely missing the point, which is that without a review process that sets explicit limits for how data can be used, developers will abuse system APIs to violate user privacy.
Restricting APIs doesn't solve the problem because there are plenty of APIs that apps need for legitimate purposes but can be abused by bad actors. Many of the APIs used for device fingerprinting would fall under this category.
There's a difference between sneaking through App Store review and not enforcing anything at all. People still shoplift even though theft is a crime, that's not an argument against having laws.
No. Apple provides a door (advertising ID) but there's also a window (fingerprinting). Right now both things exist. Apps already have the ability to fingerprint users with data they collect and that's not sneaky.
That's a strange argument though. Apple forks over an advertising ID so that any app can fingerprint you with a single system call yet you complain that more apps might in the future fingerprint you themselves.
Without app review there would be no practical way for end users to avoid fingerprinting.
> That's a strange argument though.
Only if you don't consider consent. A user opting-in and enabling the advertising ID is very different from a bunch of apps using third-party SDKs to fingerprint their device without asking.
What does it do on Google's app store? If they are still playing by google's rules, why would they take themselves off Apple's store? is Apple's data more valuable than Google's?
These kinds of theoreticals have likely already been addressed with Apple's biggest competitor. Androids aren't known to be virus ridden privacy compromising devices. At least, no more than any device with communication antennas installed.
Figure 3 provides a breakdown of infections by device type in 2020. Among smartphones, Android devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. Android devices were responsible
for 26.64% of all infections, Windows/PCs for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for iPhones.
statistically, maybe. But it's more about mindshare in cases like these. IoT devices based on your report is even more prone to compromises, but there's not much fear for a person's fridge being compromised.
And as always, these cases come down to how many people really concern themselves with that risk. Windows has had that reputation, but it hasn't helped Apple that much in terms of Mac adoption, let alone Linux.
I'm not sure why mindshare is relevant? You might not worry much about your fridge being compromised, but these days smartphones contain a lot of personal data which could be very problematic if compromised. There is even Android malware out there that steals 2FA codes.
because many people commenting on security and privacy aren't necessarily experts on such topics. Their interpretations of what is secure or not comes from marketing and word of mouth.
If you look at the stats in an extremely stark interpretation; no device is perfectly secure (0%), but no device is so malware ridden that you are more likely than not to be compromised (50%). most users will be safe as long as they don't go out of their way to disable default security settings, and few need to. In that way, privacy won't be the main factor determining why a user purchases a device or chooses an OS.
In that respect, What a user feels (or what their immediate bubble feels) has more weight than any statistical reality. Or in other words, "mindshare".
It would be WeChat, which is an entire ecosystem and OS within itself. Apple seems to regret letting that one through and is determined to not let it happen again.
Not at all. There isn’t much second or even third order thinking around these issues and the precedents set to retail as a whole. It's clear to anyone that looks at this on merit as to what Epic are trying to do and, much like Facebook, they just don’t care about the consumer or the little man, despite what they say. Quite the contrary, it’s all about the bottom line.
A lot of discussion has gone into what the 30% covers - it is arguably too high. At the same time, it would be interesting to see what Epic sees as the cost impact of hosting and distribution along with the cost of data security and what protection for their customers privacy they will put in place, were they permitted to have their own store.
I’m impartial to the 30%, but I don’t want Apple to allow payments to be done via other vendors other than Apple. I trust Apple with my credit card, but I don’t trust epic.
My biggest fear, although I don’t think it will ever happen, is apple being forced to support other stores on iPhone, and someone like Facebook moves their app over due to it allowing them to farm data, or games moving over using their own credit card provider and not knowing where my details are going.
You've been suckered into the fear mongering, unfortunately.
You already don't have any freaking clue where your credit information is being sold - I promise you it's being sold by your bank (Various "affiliated" 3rd parties pay the bank money for it). It's also being sold by most point of sale companies.
Apple is also using that data for its own ad sales.
Apple is also using your purchasing data to put small dev shops out of business - They intentionally target apps that they see making money through their payment systems, copy them, and then place their own software at the top of the store results. Very convenient for them.
Apple is also tracking when and where you use your apps (don't worry - All in the name of security [fucking /s]).
Your biggest fear shouldn't be having to think for a second before handing over your credit card. Your biggest fear should be that you've literally given the richest company in the world full control of your decision making processes, because they happen to be excellent at marketing themselves.
Google was that company 15-20 years ago, and look at how well that's working out for all the folks who are slowly trying to move away from that ecosystem now that it's become apparent that no benevolent dictatorship ever lasts - regardless of how great it is at the moment.
I’m less worried about my credit card purchasing history being sold and more worried about the cc info being intercepted and stolen.
But if I’m going to share my info with someone, I would rather it be Apple than the likes of Google, epic, or some random app that’s allowed to take payments using whatever they want.
Statistically speaking, that's a low percentage of card theft.
You're much more likely to have your card information stolen at a physical, point of sale location - Restaurant, gas station, clothing store, etc.
If this is really a concern you have, a disposable credit card is a much more reliable way to prevent unauthorized charges.
> But if I’m going to share my info with someone, I would rather it be Apple than the likes of Google, epic, or some random app that’s allowed to take payments using whatever they want.
You're already sharing this info with all of these folks, plus many, many, many more. This is what I mean when I say your bank is selling that data to affiliated parties.
Basically - what makes you think this information is private? Apple has it and uses it to make money. Your bank has it and uses it to make money. Apple happens to be large enough and enough of a monopoly that they can generate money from that information without directly selling it (at the moment, in some places). But they're doing the same thing - Profiling you to make money.
The second Apple thinks it will make more money by selling that information, they will. Not to mention it's a tad on the late side, since your bank is already sharing it everywhere.
My biggest fear if Apple wins, which I do think will happen, is that general purpose computing will be eliminated. Apple will use their victory to lock down OSX in the same way that IOS has been. So no applications can be installed in OSX without going through the App Store. Then Microsoft will follow suit; future versions of Windows will be MS Store Only unless you pay for an Enterprise license.
This could potentially extend to the web as well. Apple already forces any web browser on IOS to use Safari underneath. So there's the potential that Apple could eliminate features from websites, such as the ability to play video, unless those sites pass the strict criteria enforced on native apps from the App Store.
The M1 should be a very strong signal Apple has no intention of taking away general purpose execution. M1 Macs could have easily been as locked as iOS devices, but Apple specifically went out of their way to let device owners load unsigned operating systems if that was something they want to opt in to.
As soon as Apple allows multiple app stores, it's going to be the same crappy situation as we have on PCs: Every goddamned software developer is going to insist on having its own app store. Want an Adobe product? You have to install Adobe's store. Want an Epic product? Epic's store. Want Minecraft? Microsoft store. You'll end up with all these crappy little stores all over your device. Then you'll have store exclusives, and you'll need to search through dozens of stores whenever you want to find something. Yuck!
And this is what Apple already does, e.g. with federated identity - you must offer AppleID, you can offer others as well. A scheme like this enables iOS users without being anti competitive.
Unfortunately Epic's store on PC is being run at a loss in order to win market share and not expected to be profitable for another 2-5 years. So that wouldn't be a great comparison. The cut they take for their store is 12% but compared to other launchers on PC they provide appreciably worse features.
Agreed, if they can't even run their own store properly, will they spend the time and effort to police the apps to the same standards as Apple? Doesn't seem likely.
No, I don't either. Apple is not a monopoly, so as far as I am concerned they have a right to charge whatever they want in their AppStore and make it the exclusive way to get software on their product. If you don't like it, don't support it with your money. I honestly cannot make sense of the reasoning for any other conclusion.
Maybe the regulatory move here is to ensure on each iPhone box and prominently at each Apple Store there's clear warning to consumers that paying 1,500 USD for a phone also means you'll only be allowed to use apps available from the AppStore.
I don't know about that, as we don't require similar labels for game consoles and the like. I think it is pretty well established in the public consciousness that only the Apple AppStore can provide apps for Apple devices.
I would go so far as to say that the public consciousness probably thinks the same about the Google Play Store and Android devices despite it not actually being true in that case.
> I think it is pretty well established in the public consciousness that only the Apple AppStore can provide apps for Apple devices.
I disagree. I think the public knows software is locked to specific hardware (Windows vs. Mac, Android vs. iOS, PlayStation vs. XBox). I don't think they know that if a developer creates working software for their iPhone, the only way it can be distributed to them is through Apple's AppStore, which charges developers a 30% fee.
"The only way to get Cyberpunk 2077 is at the Microsoft Store. There's no other way to get the game"
Apple hasn’t exactly hidden the restricted nature of the App Store from customers. On the contrary, they’ve been quite boastful, and view it as a selling point. Apple would likely be thrilled if this was the extent of the regulatory action against them
The original post talks about "want", which has nothing to do with intricacies of law, which I, and I assume most HN commenters, are not qualified to judge anyway.
I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have. Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier.
> Apple is not a monopoly, so as far as I am concerned they have a right to charge whatever they want
The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point.
> I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have.
I don't think it is unrealistic of me to assume that only a small portion of HN users have experience as legal professionals.
> Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier.
I think it kinda does. I am not an expert on the application of anti-trust law so if I told Epic that they are completely wrong they will rightfully tell me where to shove it because we have people who's entire career path is dealing with the intricacies of law. Some random HNer saying that they are qualified to judge this case strikes me as particularly arrogant.
> The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point.
Apple doesn't have exclusivity of anything except on the product that they built and wholly own. Said product is not a monopoly either, since even in the market where it enjoys the largest share it is only about 50% [0]. In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place. Game consoles have a long history of exclusivity but no one seems to think that is a big deal. I have yet to hear a compelling argument why the iPhone is special.
Surely, it then makes sense to perhaps take into account what people are saying, no? The issue here is a very clear cut case of antitrust. You seem to opine facts and laws shouldn't matter in this discussion on the assumption that only legal professionals can know stuff that is relevant, and those are as you put it, by assumption, not present. Then, you are repeating the, to be frank, tiresome talking point that doubles as missing the point, whilst being a strawman: "it isn't a monopoly, because you can buy an android". So to reiterate, "monopoly" as total market share isn't the issue here. It doesn't need to be for there to be a case of antitrust. And, it clearly is such a case, no matter how much you attempt to change the discussion to "is/isn't a monopoly". They are orthogonal issues. You can have monopolies and duopolies without there being grounds for anti-trust.
Just to summarize, and also hit the nail on the head, and perhaps be less polite (not intentional, but sometimes it helps with clarity): "In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place", you are 100% mistaken on both accounts (though spot on, on the inability). The former misconception I've already explained, the latter is to be found in troves, the article I linked earlier has a good explanation on a lot of points, and unwillingness to educate yourself is also your own business. So, I'm chalking this up as a willful ignorance, which is fine. I'm not really interesting in arguing with you, or all that bothered with trying to convince you. So, I suppose we can leave it as is.
>If you don't like it, don't support it with your money. I honestly cannot make sense of the reasoning for any other conclusion.
Android has several different stores you can host on, and Epic is making their own store for Android. Google Play store still has far, far, far , far more marketshare than any other storefront. It's not even close. But I appreciate the OPTION for developers to forgoe that for whatever reason. Be it to support open source development (FDroid's MO), host content Google won't allow (adult apps tends to be the most common one, but I used some modded Youtube apps back in the day), etc. It's not an option 95% of people make, but contingency plans are always appreciated
using your logic, I don't understand why you would find the mere existence of these splinter stores offensive. don't support them with your money.
I don't have a problem with alternative app stores and generally favor openness in computing, however I see no reason that Apple should be restricted from running its platform how it wants to run it. Game consoles have had exclusivity pretty much since their inception and no one seems too bothered about it.
If Apple had a dominant market share to the point of being a defacto monopoly, then I might believe differently, but they don't.
>I don't have a problem with alternative app stores and generally favor openness in computing, however I see no reason that Apple should be restricted from running its platform how it wants to run it.
That's the crux of the entire case, Yes. Jury is literally out so I won't make any judgement on how right/wrong it is.
I'll just note that "monopoly" isn't a clear cut case here. IANAL, but I imagine it very much depends on "accessibility" as well as market share. e.g. it's easy to walk across the street from walmart and shop at Target if they one day change policy. If you don't like android's play store, you can use F-Droid, Amazon's app store, and a few others that aren't beholden to Google's rules.
There's zero other stores to try without voiding warranty on IOS if Apple one day decides to ban a certain kind of app; for all intents and purposes, that form of app is banned from IOS if it's banned from the App Store. And buying an android is more expensive than walking across the street.
>Game consoles have had exclusivity pretty much since their inception and no one seems too bothered about it.
I don't mind the consoles opening up stores either. However, consoles are much more ephemeral than a PC/mobile OS, so the incentive for 3rd parties to make a store every 5-7 years may make the openness moot. So I see very little changing even if they get caught up.
Sony did lose a lawsuit over removing the very niche option for a PS3 to install another OS, so it's not like there is zero precedence there.
