Is it Fortnite’s battle or Tencent/CCP’s battle? The timing certainly seem to indicate the latter considering Tencent owns 40% of Epic and Epic went out of their way to get themselves banned on purpose.
I’m guessing you haven’t seen Trump’s executive order targeting WeChat ‘transactions’?
Tencent and Chinese companies would benefit from being allowed to operate their own app stores or side load apps, which would allow them to significantly reduce the impact of Trump’s current and future actions.
You can see how much harder it is to ban an app on Android compared to iOS since anyone can install an apk they download from a random website (or from a third-party App Store).
Whereas now, if the government tell Apple to remove an app from their App Store worldwide then it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to download it. In the past I don’t think the CCP minded - in fact, they were probably happy about it since it made it much easier to censor apps they didn’t like. Whereas now they’re freaking out since they risk having all their apps blocked from all Apple devices worldwide.
Tim Sweeney still has a controlling stake in Epic, and has been beating this drum for a while. Previously when Microsoft introduced the Windows Store he was decrying the future of Windows as an open platform.
So to me it seems mostly Tim's personal battle. Obviously in the end it's all about money, but Tim seems to genuinely want all game developers (not just Epic) to get a larger cut of the pie as opposed to the platform holders.
The stated purpose of the Epic game store on PC is to give developers a larger cut compared to what Steam was giving them.
This just seems like capitalism to me. Epic is losing millions of dollars to Apple, they think that they can keep more of those millions of they win this lawsuit.
I don't think there's any reason to suspect a shadowy cabal of CCP interests when there's plenty of reason why Epic would want to do this out of self interest.
Fortnite might not be losing that much after all, have in mind that it's free to play, and we don't know how much profit they have after dealing with all free traffic coming from iOS devices, paying Apple tax and paying regular state income tax (although tech comapnies are known to be tricky about this last one).
It might be that is just not worth for such a massive game to be free to play, if you can't extrat enough profit from paying users.
it would be interesting to know from that 450M revenue what % is iOS only and from that how much profit (revenue minus operating expenses) is left for shareholders.
I guess my point was, if what is left for shareholders is not "that much" compared with the opportunity cost (the loss of not being doing something else) then it might make sense to put the iOS on hold and let the lawyers fight.
But I'm speculating, I'm just trying to understand the incentives in play, becuase I don't buy the 1984 video, pretending they care about what is fair.
In an incident where even fully US-based organizations were caving to maintain these Chinese market, Tim went full "I don't care what China thinks about what our players say on streams".
Pretty sure Tencent is just in it for the money, Epic's a pretty good investment.
The degree to which Blizzard kowtowed was absurd. I don’t think we should exonerate a company for choosing not to ban players that voice support for democracy in Hong Kong.
It would be interesting if Fortnite allowed people to make/sell custom skins and see how they would react to a Winnie the Pooh/Xitler skin.
This is a bizarre statement considering it's Apple who kowtows to Chinese government and censors Chinese appstore and Epic's CEO was openly criticising China and refusing to censor Fortnite players when Blizzard started doing it.
I'd bet that their end goal is to get them broken up, and have the app store separated from the product. That way Epic Payments could swoop in as an alternate gaming-focused app store for mobile devices - they already have relationships with many gaming publishers, thanks to Unreal Engine - and get a piece of that lucrative pie, while not having to pay their 30% commissions anymore.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Epic had been in touch with state AGs filing antitrust lawsuits. The timing is pretty suspicious, coming a week after Congressional hearings where Tim Cook said they don't do the exact thing they just did with Epic. You can't launch a new product in a week.
How is Epic's store approach to indies? Can a random person from nowhere pay some 100 bucks and get it's games into their store just as doing it with AppStore?
It matters for discoverability and frictionless installs/payments. That's the hardest part these days.
I am not thrilled by the idea of uneven developer access to the primary channels. Now I pay Apple 100$ and the %30 commission and I have my apps right next to the big boys. Apparently the big boys are planning to get free of the %30 and have their own walled garden where potentially I am not allowed.
There's a risk of proliferation of a business model that is possible on the Epic Store but not on AppStore and I am not welcome to join.
As a developer I would prefer a regulation to the AppStore for even access instead of alternative appstores.
So I will have to convince my potential customers to first install the app store that I can get in then they will have to remember to install my app once they complete the set up of the alternative store.
Good for you but are you going to pay me few thousand dollars a month so I can sustain an independent business? Probably not. What I need is access to a lot of people who are willing to pay me a small sum each for the software that I make. Multiple appstores with uneven access is unlikely to help with that and would probably increase my development costs too.
That's not that big a problem for established and big companies but it is something that I am not looking forward to.
Deploying your software to these different stores probably doesn't involve as much friction as you think it does, and if there is a proliferation of stores one could imagine services springing up in the space to facilitate multi-store deployments and to make the process easier on developers. I mean, if it really is such a worry to you then someone will make a product to help with it because it is a business opportunity. TestFlight, after all, was invented because beta-testing Apple's apps used to be (more) awful.
If you are a small indie app, you can stick with the biggest or a popular store. Likes of microsoft and Epic will fight to get there own stores installed or Apple will loosen is grip.
Presumably Apple's app store would continue to exist as a first-among-equals even if regulators forced them to allow alternative app stores on the iOS platform.
It's not a walled garden if you have multiple options. If there are competing app stores you only need to publish on one of them. Based on what I've read a lot of users think Apple is the only one capable of running a high quality app store and since they'd be the default anyway you can continue to publish there and nothing changes.
How does also having the potential to distribute on another app store make it worse?
> If there are competing app stores you only need to publish on one of them
That's only good for having to say that you have an app. Putting that app in the hands of the people is a different story and it's the hard part.
When there are multiple app stores, you can only access the people on that app store which can drastically reduce your market size. It is not realistic to be able to make people install and set up an app store and then install your app. Yeah sure, you can convince few very interested people every now and then but on mobile this doesn't make a business.
It is likely that the original App Store will shrink as some people will move to other stores where you might not be allowed to publish. Also, multiple stores creates support nightmare for the users since they will no longer be able to talk to Apple and get their refunds. People would no longer be confident when doing a purchase.
This is very bad for independent developers who are not hobbyist but hope to make living.
Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
IMHO:
1) AppStore should be regulated to give equal opportunity to all. Right now there are some problems but it is not broken. An idea would be to have an special API to provide alternative appstore through backend integration but have all this completely invisible to the users. For example, maybe you should be able to link to an alternative appstore but the install process be exactly the same as the original AppStore, payments handled exactly the same but get the commisions to bare minimum when the provider is the alternative appstore. This is like the "repository" concept on Linux app stores, the problem is the customer support when something goes bad. It doesn't work well when the users don't have someone holding both the responsibility and the power to solve their problem. How is Apple supposed to handle the help request due to issues caused by other stores?
2) Jailbreaking should be an option provided by Apple. People should have the freedom to jailbreak their device and do whatever they want with it. Probably should be hard to do to make sure that it's done only by people who know what they are doing.
3) Commissions should probably differentiate for stuff like Spotify v.s. In game coins because on Spotify, they actually don't sell their original content but deal it by buying it from the musicians.
> other stores where you might not be allowed to publish
But that's the case with the current app store already isn't it? At least with competing app stores I could publish my app _somewhere_ if Apple rejects it.
I don't think regulating the app store or forcing them to transparently integrate other app stores would work either. Allowing _anyone_ to publish an app store would have it's own issues, so I think it would have to be gated by money. Ex: Apple can charge $1 million to publish your app store. That would exclude me from running an app store, but also excludes bad actors.
Apple also has a huge lead with services that support iOS devs, so it's not like someone will build a competing store that's on par immediately. If a new Epic store needed to re-implement everything Apple has _and_ provide those features via a stable API, they still have a huge uphill battle because if both stores are equal, devs will prefer the Apple version since it would be the default on all devices.
I don't really get the argument I see with people being reliant on Apple for refunds. On the PC, it's an expectation for a store to have a refund policy where you can automatically collect a refund. It would be the same on mobile if they wanted to compete. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on good customer service even though they've done a really good job of convincing people they do.
> Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
I really disagree with that. Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it. Now I get no guarantees and since I'm a small developer I have no negotiating power. I don't have a big social media following and if Apple or Google refuse to publish my app it's tough luck for me. Large incumbent developers can pick up the phone and talk to someone at Apple or Google. Small developers can't.
I agree the pricing isn't much of an issue for small developers. You can plan around that and I think it's safe to assume prices aren't going up anytime soon. It's losing the ability to be guaranteed you can publish your app that's the problem. I said the same thing when the app store was new. If I'm developing a custom LoB (line of business) app for another small business, how can I guarantee them I'll be able to get it on their devices? I can't and the enterprise programs aren't an option for a one off LoB app. You'll notice that kind of stuff doesn't really exist on the mobile app stores and everything has trended to large SaaS offerings. There used to be a market for custom small business apps on the PC and that's completely disappeared in the last decade because of the walled garden app stores.
IMHO it would be possible for someone to run a better app store than Apple and that's what they're afraid of. Even though the "quality" of the app store is touted a lot around here it's filled with garbage. Watch a kid play a game for 30 minutes and you'll see a ton of ads for other low effort games where the whole ecosystem is similar to advertising click fraud. The number of un-closable, misleading, click incentivizing ads in kids games is appalling.
So I can imagine an app store that caters to high quality apps and games for kids where everything is paid up-front (no IAP) and there are no ads. It's that kind of niche, super high quality curation that I think Apple and Google are terrified of.
You are right that the current situation is not ideal too, I would prefer if there was a single store for iOS and Android. That said, simply because these problems already exists to some extent, it doesn't mean that amplifying them isn't going to make things worse.
> Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it
Publish and do what with it? Collect kudos from strangers? That's not good, I can't live on kudos, I should be able to do business. Surely you can adopt a business model where you collect and sell data about your users or sell access to your users(known as browser extension business) but I find that business model unethical and I don't want to be involved in it.
Business happens when money change hands, writing code and putting it out there is not a business(unless you are payed to do it for someone but that's a different situation). After a communist revolution things may change but until then, that's how it is.
> Publish and do what with it? Collect kudos from strangers?
To give you an example, I once sold a small, single screen app to a local business for about $2k.
That’s not great money, but at least is was something and still better than working a minimum wage job. Once I was done I knew 100% I could give them a Windows installer that would work for a very long time.
With the App Store model I don’t think I could have said yes to doing that work because the risk of not being able to deliver. The risks there would be eating the cost of the development and loss of reputation since they’d be annoyed at spending a bunch of time and getting nothing out of it.
Now things have come full circle and LoB apps would all be web apps.
Honestly direct sales does seem to be where this might be headed.
Between safe, secure payment technologies such as (heh) Apple Pay and and safe, secure login systems such as (heh) Login with Apple, then really its super easy to not worry too much about the signup friction.
The problem with direct payments is users trust. Crypto is a already available form of payment and there are many tools to take payments directly but it never took of besides for drugs and ransom payments.
There are plenty of services such as Apple Pay (or equivalent tokenized services on other phones), 3D Secure, and/or PayPal that don't expose your PAN.
Europe is already essentially running on 3D Secure with 2FA. Becomes noticeable when buying from stores not having the EU as a significant market, usually American, which does not implement it. After the transaction is declined I'm forced to open my bank app and click the scary sounding "open my card for all internet purchases for 60 minutes" button.
That's not a problem, the problem is converting a user into a paying customer and the payment method is one serious friction point that Apple smoothed out so nicely. I am not concerned that I wouldn't receive the payment, I am concern that less people will bother going through the payment process.
a random person can't even sell items in Walmart for that matter...
Fortnite is a software platform and the market is part of the software.
Apple is an Hardware company which also chose the software you can run on it, which also owns the only market where you can buy software for.
That's a pretty different situation.
TLDR: Apple can sell Apple stuff exclusively on their e-store, they shouldn't force third party developers to sell their stuff only on their mobile store.
I'm not seeing the distinction. Why is hardware relevant? If Epic sold a "Fortnite tablet" would this somehow change the legality of Epic's monopoly on selling digital items in Fortnite?
Because it's the part that people should own after they bought it.
You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
Many probably like it that way, that's not the point, the point is that if Safari is the root of many exploit for iOS (https://twitter.com/Zerodium/status/1260541578747064326) users cannot disable it and replace it with something else, something more secure
That completely hinder the free (as in freedom) utilization of the device
> If Epic sold a "Fortnite tablet" would this somehow change the legality of Epic's monopoly on selling digital items in Fortnite?
Of course it would!
It would be a monopoly nonetheless
Even though a table that can only play Fortnite cannot clearly be classified as general computing platform.
But it would probably be based on Android, being iOS not available for third parties, and allow sideloading.
The same point could be made about Amazon and the Kindle, but Amazon allows self publishing and direct sell for free.
> Because it's the part that people should own after they bought it.
Why? Is that just an arbitrary principle? Why should "hardware" be something we have absolute control over, but "software" is not?
> You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can use an iPhone without using the App Store. But in both cases, it's probably just not as good of an experience.
> You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
That seems like some rhetorical gymnastics that could be applied to any product or service. You can't use cheating software in Fortnite either (or at least they presumably have measures in place to prevent it).
> Of course it would!
Okay, then you're consistent. I'll give you that. Presumably you think courts should require manufacturers of literally all electronic devices to provide an easy way for owners to run any software they want?
> Why? Is that just an arbitrary principle? Why should "hardware" be something we have absolute control over, but "software" is not?
I don't disagree with the general sentiment but
1) hardware is your property, you buy it and you should be able to use it the way you want. Also it's harder to replace it, you can easily change the gas station, it's harder to change a car.
2) the problem with Apple (but also Google Play store in many ways) is that you buy hardware capable of doing something that the software doesn't permit. Not because it's not capable of doing it, but because the manufacturer don't want you to use it that way.
But in the general you're right, I'm a big advocate of free software, and I've been since the middle 90s, because I think you should have total control over it. Including changing the parts that don't fit your needs.
I'm also in favour of using cheats if you want to, but in a tournament things have to be fair and that's where I think you shouldn't use them, in the same way I think doping at the Olympic games should not be allowed.
Even if Epic isn't directly suing them at this time, a ruling against Apple and/or Google for their store behavior will hit every other app/game store operator. Arguably, there's limits to how many companies Epic can go after at once, and they have to pick their battles somewhat politically, I imagine. But if an Apple or Google behavior gets ruled unlawful in court, and Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo is doing it, Epic probably won't even have to sue to make them drop it.
They pay game companies to make sure they're the only store in town for popular new releases. There are other stores for other games, but not the Epic exclusives. Just like there are other stores for Android than Google Play, but lots of stuff uses Play Services and thus can't work without Play.
The obvious difference is that those game developers have the choice to be exclusive to the epic store, or steam, or neither or whatever. They are making the choice.
The difference there is there is no other way to distribute iOS Apps. Period.
There are so many ways to distribute PC games and software, you cannot even begin to enumerate half of them.
Mostly the same on Android too. With a simple toggle, you can then install other App Stores like Amazon's, etc. Many phones come with alternative App Stores pre-installed too.
It's not the same. Anyone who wants to develop a SaaS offering that requires a mobile app, which is basically everything nowadays, MUST take into account Apple's App Store and the Google Play Store because almost all of the target users will have those devices.
A game developer selling an exclusive to Epic is much different. They're not gatekeeping the platform which is the PC and no one is being forced to use the Epic store for distribution to get their games on the PC.
So to get access to 100% of the market on mobile platforms, you MUST deal with Apple AND Google. To get access to 100% of the market for anything on the PC platform you MAY deal with Epic, Steam, all of the above, or self-distribution. The difference is that developers get to choose which distribution strategy and platform makes the most sense for them in terms of cost, support, target audience, etc..
It's like if Walmart and Target were the only stores in North America and most buyers only shopped at one or the other. Would "choosing" not to sell your product at Walmart be a real option at that point?
Which would kill the subsidised console market, nobody is going to buy a console for $600, and would just turn iOS into a clone of the fragmented dumpster fire that is the Android app ecosystem.
The subsidies mostly aren't in exclusive cash - although they have a razor and blades style price shifting for upfront hardware and "console tax" on games but in "standardization" - having a big 3 or so system configurations to design and test for is easy and gives them a big market with just one and the biggest if across all 3 compared to Windows PCs and their minority of minorities mac and Linux share.
Consoles are mostly sold at slightly above the cost of manufacture, maybe 5%, but that's nowhere near enough to recoup the costs of development, distribution, marketing and maintaining the attached online services. To make a profit on them as a standalone consumer product MS and Sony would to charge another 30% to 40%. The bill of manufacture for a PS 5 is estimated at $450, that's why I said they would probably have to charge $600. The console market is highly price sensitive and we've seen time and again a premium of just $100 can kill a product.
Sony is also in the software business. Their hardware margins may be thin, but how profitable is Naughty Dog? Or Insomniac? What kind of money do they make from the subscription services sold on the console?
I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you saying Sony and Microsoft should just make less money?
It's entirely possible to lose money on consoles. Microsoft wrote off such a huge loss on the first XBOX, between $5bn and $7bn, that counting inflation on the losses they probably still haven't made a profit off it.
The other problem with that is it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market. The up front cost is device losses would be staggering. It was bad enough for Microsoft as it is.
> Are you saying Sony and Microsoft should just make less money?
Not at all. I'm merely pointing on that their console business is composed of many streams and focusing on one part of it to the exclusion of others is deceiving. Supposedly, Return of the Jedi has never made money yet they kept making Star Wars movies.
> it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market
I disagree. It's harder to compete with competitors that are selling their product below the cost of production. I've always wondered if an EU-based company came out with a console, what would happen? I think Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would be forced to sell their consoles at or above cost in the EU or face dumping charges.
I don’t think it’s deceiving at all. If you don’t think it would lead to them to make less money, can you explain how?
It seems to me that if the consoles cost 1/3 more they would sell fewer of them (Lots of empirical evidence for this), and therefore sell fewer games and make less revenue on services to their smaller customer base, who now can by games from other publishers without the console vendor making a penny. After all isn’t the point of this to cut off their other revenue streams at the knees? I may well be missing something though.
Looking forward to a fun new App Store world. Just like streaming services it will fragment to many different subscribed stores, each with their own privacy and sharing policies, for temporary access to exclusive games. Nothing like a little offshore gaming or porn gaming to pass the time in class.
Sure, but Kindle doesn't have an SDK or apps at all. There are however multiple phone apps and websites that let you loan or buy books and automatically push them to your Kindle.
Apple and Google are very vertically integrated and the combination of the two basically own the mobile market stack. While Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have their own bubbles, they don't own the whole gaming market. PC gaming is a huge and relatively open market.
I think you're right. Google sent out a developer survey recently with a lot of questions including Epic & Unreal, and stand out questions included "would you still use the Google Play Store and Android if it was no longer owned & run by Google" and "would you pay a fee to use the App Store". So I think Google is already preparing for a future where hardware, software & app store divisions are all split up into separate companies.
I don't think Apple is prepared for that future. I can imagine Google & Amazon making app stores that run on iOS, but I can't see Apple making an App Store For Android.
(Imagine if Google could also have an iOS App Store, and you could buy software once on Google Play Android, and the same purchase also ran on iOS devices via Google Play For iOS. Would you keep buying software from Apple?)
Oh grief, so then we'd have Apple put all the cool new features in iOS in their iOS App Store libraries, as Google does with the Play Store and leave iOS itself as a bare bones layer, with some crappy crippled ghost town stores on the side full of malware and adware. All in the name of customer choice. Gah. I do have a choice, if I wanted a mess like that I'd get an Android phone.
Pretty much how it'll go, yup. Meanwhile, making it all the harder for people who are making applications that are never going to be distributed via the App Store because you wanted to make use of one of those APIs.
Exactly, I don't understand why everyone is quick to turn Apple into Android, when I bet they don't even have iPhones in the first place. I know the concensus on HN is that Apple is a monopoly, but ALL my friends expect for one have androids. You can say "Well yes, but by % of revenue", but that's the point. All my friends will never give a penny to a play store App because it has the reputation of a Warez site, full of flashlight apps that need root permission to install.
I have had both and I prefer Android, but I am using an iPhone 11 right now. I would switch back to Android in heartbeat if there was a way for me to seamlessly message my children on their iPads similar to iOS. I use about 10 apps on my phone and they are all available on iOS and Android. Once my kids are old enough to be thoughtful users of a cell phone, I will switch back to Android.
Apple announced that you can run their own software on their own hardware that only they manufacture
Microsoft Windows 10 can run on any compatible hardware I want, including virtual hardware (Mac OS cannot be legally virtualized on non Apple HW)
Microsoft doesn't make Android and doesn't even manufacturers smartphones anymore, they'll embraced it as a compatible platform, as they did with Linux.
From a developer standpoint that's a big step forward, from the user standpoint it reduces the friction between mobile and non mobile platforms, now they can run their apps on the most popular OS that they can run on practically any x86 HW they own. It's a pretty radical change.
> Do you expect Apple to run Android apps or license their OS?
I do expect they will be forced to make at least sideloading possible
> If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
nobody expects businessmen to be decent human beings, nobody expects that from a US company, but Prada, for example, can't force you to wear Prada shoes if you bought a Prada dress.
If you wanna buy Gucci shoes, you don't have to go through the Prada store that charges you 30% just because you can't escape it.
What the majority of the people here are saying is that Apple margins are artificial and built on having an unescapable walled garden
It is like luring people in a Mall and closing the doors
Of course they are going to buy only from shops inside the Mall, but what if they could go shopping somewhere else?
Why is Apple so afraid of it?
If their product is superior, people will buy it anyway.
Right?
---
Of course there is more to it
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to.
Apple does not permit to advertise in apps different ways of creating an account on third party services, which obviously gives an unfair advantage to Apple, if you are Spotify and can't tell people how to create an account outside of the iOS is one thing, but if you are a news outlet and can't advertise your website (where you collect ads or advertise different payment profiles) that's really hindering publishers and user's rights (it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it - and there is only one option available while there are more on their website)
Ny Times can maybe handle it, but what about smaller companies/publishers?
Apple thinks that if the app doesn't work user would think it's s device problem, but if buying things from apple store costs more, users will think that publishers are to blame, and publishers are usually not worth 2 trillions and can't afford the bad PR the same way Apple can.
What the majority of the people here are saying is that Apple margins are artificial and built on having an unescapable walled garden
You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge?
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
People still use slow BT transfers? Why? This isn’t 2004. There are much better ways to transfer files.
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to
Sure it is. SMS.
it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it
It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store. I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
> You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge?
You mean the same argument that Apple fanboys have been repeating over and over, except that I can side load apps on Android and consoles are hardly needed (smartphones are)?
BTW I can buy new and used games at GameStop
Does an AppleStop exist?
Can I buy used apps on the aftermarket?
I can sell the same song on Spotify, Bandcamp, on my website directly and also have a patreon.
Can I do the same with an app for iPhone?
Spotify is also different because they mostly sell copyrighted material owned by a copyright holder which usually is not the author.
It's more like Apple music, which I don't have a problem with since there are alternatives and I can watch the content on other devices (the apps are available on the play store, for example) and Apple is making deals with labels, the same labels that sell to Spotify or YouTube
But to be completely honest, it would be great if MS, Sony, Spotify etc etc were forced to open up their platforms because they are found using unfair competition tactics.
But Apple IMO is the worst offender of the lot.
> Sure it is. SMS.
It isn't though...
My plan doesn't include SMS
I have unlimited data, unlimited phone calls, but no SMS
So, again, Apple is reducing user experience to lock users in.
also: SMS travel in clear text
So much for security...
> It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store.
Because there is a grocery store available
Where is the Apple grocery store?
> I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors
And competition is good
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
So it's like you put your product at best buy and best buy put it out like it was a best buy product
Would you like it?
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy.
But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
But I prefer to think that it's just Apple forcing people to defend their abusive behaviour online
It makes me feel less sad for those who really believe Apple is the good guy
My plan doesn't include SMS
I have unlimited data, unlimited phone calls, but no SMS
So it’s Apple’s fault that your plan doesn’t have SMS?
Where is the Apple grocery store?
It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors
And competition is good
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
Apple has plenty of competition. I go into a cell phone store, I see dozens of phones besides iPhones. Just like when I go into GameStop I see three incompatible consoles.
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy.
But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I don’t complain on the internet about Android or Windows. I choose the alternative. I didn’t need the government for that. Free will is great isn’t it. I also didn’t complain back in the day that Nintendo only allowed certain types of games - I bought an alternate console.
Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
> So it’s Apple’s fault that your plan doesn’t have SMS?
It's Apple fault to not make an iMessage app for Android though
My friends with iPhones don't even know that when they are messaging with me I receive an SMS, because Apple never made it clear that iMessage is Apple only
SMS by the way is not a chat protocol, it's an alerting protocol
So Apple is using it wrong
> It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
Android is not Apple competitor.
Android is iOS competitor and prior was Windows Mobile or Blackberry competitor.
In fact you can install a different OS on Android phones, you can't on Apple phones and that's the point, if it's a closed platform, it's a closed market, different from other markets and Apple is a monopolist in it.
You are conflating you arguments with meaningless comparisons.
> I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
You would if the chinese store forced you to buy pizza from them because you have chinese pottery at home
I don't know why is it so hard to understand that these arguments are childish at best
> You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
No, you are not on Apple store.
From their developers' guidelines
Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1
> Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
I imagined that before engaging in a discussion you read the relative documentation ...
I guess you didn't
> Apple has plenty of competition
It does not.
It's artificial competition.
The point is Apple is a market per se and is a monopolist in that market.
If only people could have some degree of freedom it would be a different situation.
> I choose the alternative.
THere's no alternative to Apple, Apple is a different closed ecosystem.
When you'll understand that, everything will be clearer.
> I didn’t need the government for that.
Iḿ sorry to state it like this, Iḿ Italian and my english is decent at best, but who cares what you need?
I don't need a doctor right now, but I'm happy the government of my country is funding a public healthcare that can take care for free of people who need it and/or couldn't afford it if it was an expensive procedure
> Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
They weren't complaining, they were stating the obvious, in fact MS was sentenced for "abuse of dominant position"
Sun Microsystem raised the complain and won.
Epic is doing the same to Apple, and will probably get some satisfaction.
> What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
What do you say of people that constantly assume?
> If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
The same apps that are profitable on iOS are profitable on Android, but they cost less for the user and the developer have the possibility of earning more
You can play Fortnite on Android even if Google removes it from their store.
BTW I can buy new and used games at GameStop
Does an AppleStop exist?
Let me tell you a little story about game call Tekken x Street Fighter. Back when I bought it was $40 from GameStop. But when you bought the physical game, 7 or 8 characters were locked until you paid for them digitally - another $15 in Sony’s “walled garden”. Guess what happened when you bought the game used? The next person still had to pay the $15. So sure you can buy the disc used but you can’t buy half the content.
Can I buy the Carlton dance on Fortnite used? Can I sell all of the virtual items I bought on Fortnite? Can I buy items and use them on the “Fortnite platform” without giving Epic a cut? Epic has just as much of a “monopoly” on the Fortnite platform as Apple does on iOS.
See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
> The next person still had to pay the $15. So sure you can buy the disc used but you can’t buy half the content.
The in app purchase of digital goods is a can of worms on its own, but completely orthogonal to the issue at hands with Apple monopoly.
I would argue that the fact that Apple forces publishers to go through in app purchase for everything related to money exchange between the publisher and the user is even worse than being a monopoly
I think creating a walled garden where they are the sole ruler and dictator it's unfair, but profitting from shady practices like selling items in games that more oftne than not are played by kids, it's criminal
I don't like Sony, MS, Google, Facebook, Epic etc. etc. more than Apple.
Simply on this matter I think Epic is right and Apple wrong.
I don't take parts with companies, only my side as a user.
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
> See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
It is silly to not understand context.
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Imagine they said it was for your own safety, because you are unable to discern good from bad, but at the same time dozen of celebrities had their private pictures and videos leaked because the Sony cloud is not as secure as they say...
I think creating a walled garden where they are the sole ruler and dictator it's unfair, but profitting from shady practices like selling items in games that more oftne than not are played by kids, it's criminal
Isn’t this exactly what Epic is doing with Fortnite?
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly” on buying digital goods on Fortnite? Could I set up a “virtual store” within Fortnite and sell “cool” dance moves? If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store? Can I resell virtual goods I buy in Fortnite?
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Apple didn’t remove the game from individuals devices. In fact, if you have already downloaded the game and you wipe your device, you can still redownload Fortnite from the App Store?
> Isn’t this exactly what Epic is doing with Fortnite?
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
How it is that relevant to Apple monopoly?
> How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly
Well, I guess that if you are a functioning adult you are able to figure out yourself the difference between a game that you can only use for playing the game and a computing platform that you can use for practically everything
Of course Epic has a monopoly on Epic games, Apple has a monopoly on Apple Mail, that's how the author rights work
> If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store?
I still have to give Epic a cut. Why can’t I accept credit cards on the Epic platform and bypass Epic’s “walled garden”?
Because the version available on people's phone still relies on their payment processor for in app payments.
The version on the phone allows people to bypass Apple’s in app payment.
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
The original sin was to allow in app purchases for consumables in games to fester on iOS in the first place. I would be fine if all games had to either be paid up front or allow you to pay for levels you keep.
> I still have to give Epic a cut. Why can’t I accept credit cards on the Epic platform and bypass Epic’s “walled garden”?
Count to 10 and ask yourself the same question in front of a mirror
I'm sure you'll find the right answer
(Epic is not complaining that Apple takes a cut, but that the only way to ask for money to users is go through Apple store, which doesn't make Epic software, if Apple asked it only for Apple software, that would be much less of a problem)
> You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge?
Why do people think this is an effective argument? In any other context, noting that prices are standardized across the entire market would be strong evidence that the market was not competitive.
If you went into a shoe store and every shoe in the shop was $49.99, that's pretty good evidence that the shoe manufactures are not competing with each other over price the way that they should be.
You look at something like gas prices, service industries, physical goods, games, online payment providers -- you see lots of different prices and fees, deals, and marketing strategies. You don't see a standardized price that's universally applied to everyone, because the companies are actually competing with each other to attract customers with diverse offerings.
An unspoken agreement between every digital storefront to charge developers 30% fees on even unrelated services is bad. On more open platforms, you don't see that: Steam, Epic, GoG, Itch, and Humble all have different fees because they're actually competing with each other and it's actually possible for upstarts to disrupt the market.
You can sideload on Android - why is Google charging 30%? You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there? Where are the successful third party app stores for Android? Why did Epic decide to relent and make their game available on Google Play?
> You can sideload on Android [...] Where are the successful third party app stores for Android? [...] Why did Epic decide to relent and make their game available on Google Play?
Epic is actively suing Google for using anti-competitive practices to force phone makers not to include 3rd-party app stores on their phones[0].
One example they bring up:
> Epic struck a deal with OnePlus to make Epic games available on its phones through an Epic Games app. The Epic Games app would have allowed users to seamlessly install and update Epic games, including Fortnite, without obstacles imposed by Google’s Android OS. But Google forced OnePlus to renege on the deal, citing Google’s “particular[] concern” about Epic having the ability to install and update mobile games while “bypassing the Google Play Store”.
If you want to show that sideloading doesn't make a difference for storefront fees, you should pick a company not currently being sued for antitrust to demonstrate it.
----
> You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there?
You can't sideload on a console, I don't know what you're getting at.
In regards to price fixing on consoles: you're right, the console situation is also bad. We effectively have only 3 major consoles, and a reasonably high barrier of entry into the space for similar reasons as mobile phones. Of course, the console space is better (in no small part because the PC market exists), and console manufacturers do compete more for developers than Apple and Google do. But it's not perfect, and as a result, you still see some issues around competition.
It took direct action from developers like Epic to even force the issue on cross-play, which is a decent sign that console manufactures really didn't feel like they needed to compete with each other in that area.
However, it is generally ill-advised to sue every single major games distributor at the same time, so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas first.
The whataboutism doesn't really work here. Yes, console sideloading would probably be good for the market, it's just not as big and immediate of a problem as Apple is -- in part because more people own iPhones than an Xbox, in part because the barriers of entry to console competition are slightly lower, and in part because the PC games market provides somewhat of an escape hatch for console games, and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas firsT
Epic is the problem in the case of Fortnite. They are no more ethical than the Candy Crush, Farmville’s of the world.
What happen to HN users who love Big Government wanting fo go after all of the “game” companies who were milking consumers selling loot boxes and virtual currency?
and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
That escape hatch is called Android.
But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves. If the entire play to win games completely disappeared nothing of value would be loss.
If Apple made a rule banning in app purchases for games or at least banning consumables, it would be a better experience for customers. The entire pay to win mobile game ecosystem is a bigger stain on the iPhone than in app purchases.
I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
Totally agreed on the overall criticism of the typical mobile game model, but the specific example of Fortnite is at least not really pay-to-win (afaik the only arguments for buyable benefits in it are that some skins are harder to see than others, and that some "dance moves"/"emotes" can be used to duck behind cover?)
So we are back to sympathizing for Epic and Fortnite?
It’s strange
HN: We want government to be more involved in tech.
Government: okay let’s pass laws against net neutrality, against strong encryption, the DMCA, COPPA and force the sell of TikTok and the governmebt should get a cut.
HN: oh no. The government abuses power and doesn’t understand tech. But the government will get it right next time.
You are projecting way to much into my comment. And if there were a single "HN" opinion on this, we'd not have hundreds/thousands of comments of discussion on it.
So you don’t want the same government that passed the DMCA and COPPA to have more power over tech?
Did you watch the hearings of the four CEOs? The same hearing where the biggest concern on one side was that tech was being mean to conservatives and grilled Zuckerberg about Twitter’s treatment of Don Jr.? Is this the government you trust to regulate tech and not do more harm than good?
No one has been able to rise to the challenge - name one good law that the US government has passed in the last 40 years with regard to tech - either Democratic or Republican.
I'm unsure how me voicing the opinion that Fortnite is not among the worst patterns of mobile games, which is all I've done in this thread, is related to any of that.
This is a weird take. Do you think net neutrality isn't a government regulation?
How can anyone look at the early Bell systems regulations, telephone breakups, forced network compatibility with 3rd-party answering phones and network devices and think, "now that's a market that thrived without the government?"
The entire history of the Internet and the tech industry, from regulations around smart-phone unlocking and number porting, to net neutrality itself is a giant example of how forcing the market to be competitive against its will is sometimes really good for both consumers and for innovation.
> But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves.
It's almost like giving two companies a stranglehold over the entire mobile market means that only certain types of games can thrive, and that by and large more serious developers will be forced to abandon mobile games entirely.
You could almost imagine that in a world where quality games weren't constantly crowded out of the ecosystem, and where developers were free to be more creative, and where serious games could sell on serious storefronts that didn't force them to advertise right next to Candy Crush, that we'd have better games and less of a race to the bottom on price and ethics.
I'm having a really hard time reconciling, "Apple is great at managing an app store", with "everything on the app store is trash."
> I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
You shouldn't be deciding your legal principles based on whether or not you personally like the people involved.
This came up with Google vs Oracle as well. I don't really like Google as a company; that doesn't mean I wanted Oracle to win. I was able to look past my feelings, look at what the overall threat was to the entire industry, and treat the law as more than a popularity contest.
I really don't care whether or not people like Epic, it's not relevant to the conversation.
>I know the concensus on HN is that Apple is a monopoly, but ALL my friends expect for one have androids.
The monopoly that Epic is complaining about is not a monopoly on smartphones or smartphone operating systems. It's a monopoly on selling iOS apps and processing payments for iOS apps and content.
You cannot allow a global duopoly of companies that managed to become the infrastructure for a large part of our economy to take a cut of all or most business that is done on top of that infrastructure.
Imagine we had allowed that to happen with telephone networks or roads. Whoever came first would have been able to suck the air out of the rest of the economy.
Imagine if 30% of your A/C electricity bill went to Nikola Telsa Inc. and the internet was filled with people telling you it's not a monopoly because you have the option of D/C.
The same people claim the app store is this magically perfect service that provides infinite value for both developers and users. If that's the case no one would choose to use a 3rd party app store, so having the option would make no difference.
The reality IMO is that developers would try to flock to an app store with better terms and users would cling to the existing model.
To me, a fantastic outcome would be if Apple gets forced to allow developers to inform users they can pay for subscriptions outside the app store and to charge +30% to people that still want to use the app store. Then all the users defending Apple can put their money where their mouth is.
Then add in competing app stores that don't take a 30% cut and all of a sudden you'll have "dedicated" Apple users flocking to the new stores to save a buck.
Oh come on, save your silly sarcasm for reddit. If someone doesn't want to use the App Store for their app they have NO OTHER OPTION.
Nobody cares about other markets, but you can't even host your own app! You are forced to give up 30% of your app revenue just to be in their walled garden. That is monopolistic in every possible way. And stop with the childish "ooh we're gonna end up like Android". Android devices are more than capable to hold their own against Apple's offerings nowadays and I haven't heard anyone complain about viruses and malware in like five years now.
And when I want to install an open source app I can do so on Android but Apple wants to tell me I can't after I spent $1k on their shiny phone. Amazing stuff, let's not lose it for something silly like user and developers having a fucking choice.
Maybe one day the sky will fall on all our heads. But to your point, sure if an Android phone does the job better for me then I'd buy one. Right now they don't and one of the reasons is the different development and distribution model.
A discussion about rates/App Store contracts seems like a different discussion—and one I'm all for.
But I personally would not like having the system I bought as a phone suddenly change in function allowing side-loaded software. (Similar to how I'm not happy that, in time, the PC-controlled Oculus hardware I've owned for several years will soon be useless without an FB account.)
> But I personally would not like having the system I bought as a phone suddenly change in function allowing side-loaded software.
This is exactly the problem. Apple can and does routinely change the functioning of their phones, and if you prefer the old functionality you have no recourse, because Apple contractually forbids you from installing software of your choosing.
My phone hasn’t changed in function. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. They don’t contractually forbid me from anything I haven’t agreed with by buying this device. I bought an iPhone specifically because it is locked down and simple.
Not OP, but of course. This is a realistic threat when traveling internationally and passing through customs. In most countries, if border security agents want to walk off with your phone for a while you can't refuse. Many organizations have a "devices that enter China stay in China" policy for exactly this reason.
Then you wouldn’t install third-party App stores and just use only Apple’s. The choice would be yours. Right now we don’t have a choice, and that is a problem.
I fail to see why people think this is such a problem on this forum. It’s as people think all hell and doom breaks lose if, god forbid, developers are able to distribute apps themselves.
> Right now we don’t have a choice, and that is a problem.
It may be a problem to you, but for other people it's a feature. Some people have more involved threat models than you are keeping in mind. They don't want their device to be able to run arbitrary code or unsigned code. Having this feature but having a toggle to turn it off defeats the purpose.
Maybe you disagree, but HN is shockingly flippant about dismissing this extremely legitimate security concern, and comments like this are a perfect example.
Uh, isn't this was Enterprise registered iPhones are for? I was under the impression Apple are perfectly happy to charge you a ton to be able to have group policy style control over Apple devices. Which would obvious include locking that particular feature down.
Well, and that's kind of an extension of this. Real security where you own the phone and the software for it is a premium feature only available to people who can pay <ask for quote.>
No intentional user-facing arbitrary software installation vectors. Safari, WhatsApp or whatever you use will serve that role whether they were designed to or not.
If Android can hold its own then there is no monopoly. If they don’t want to use the App Store, don’t get an iPhone. It’s that simple. A monopoly is when customers have no choice, but in smartphones with the ability to run apps, they clearly do. I like my choice and so do a lot of other people, why can’t you just leave us alone?
I don’t have a practical choice to use iOS: my extended family uses FaceTime and iMessage instead of WhatsApp and Skype for example - and my company develops for iOS-first as well.
If Apple made-good on Steve Jobs’ promise to make FaceTime an open standard and I could use it from Android devices and and PC then your argument would be stronger.
Apple put us in an unfortunate position where the strength of the iOS ecosystem means that many of us don’t have a choice in phone platform to buy into - which in turn opens us up to being exploited by their App Store practices.
Point is - I feel like I’m being dicked-over by Apple and the alternatives are just not feasible. Responses like “Just buy two phones lol” or “you still have a choice to use Android and not talk with your family at all” aren’t helpful or productive.
I’m sure the same arguments would have been made with Standard Oil when anti-trust law wasn’t on the books yet: arguably consumers and companies still had a choice to not use oil: they could use coal or natural-gas. People have a choice to drive a car or they could walk or ride a horse or take a train... hopefully you see why your argument is seen as being made in bad faith. We have a choice, yes - but it isn’t a free choice. We are being coerced into making a choice by our circumstances and Apple is taking an unreasonably unfair advantage of that.
Apple put us in an unfortunate position where the strength of the iOS ecosystem means that many of us don’t have a choice in phone platform to buy into - which in turn opens us up to being exploited by their App Store practices.
You don’t lay any of the blame on Google’s inability you convince people that their phones are worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
I can't use Android. Google literally cannot have their Android phones be able to make FaceTime calls or send/receive iMessages because Apple won't let them.
How is any of that Google's fault? That's Apple entrenching their platform lock-in in a way that ultimately harms customers.
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
> You don’t lay any of the blame on Netscape's inability to convince people that their Navigator browser is worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
Google however has tried a half dozen times to create a messenger app sometimes more than one at a same time. Why couldn’t Google succeed? Incompetence? Apple allows third parties to have tight integration with the native dialer and contact apps.
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
Google in fact was able to overtake IE on Windows so thoroughly that MS gave up and is now using Google’s engine.
What could possible go wrong with letting third parties reading text messages?
There are dozens of other messaging clients on iPhones. Outside of the US, most people don’t even use iMessage. Now people are complaining that they can’t convince their friend circle to use alternate messaging apps.
This is again partially due to Google’s incompetence. They can’t even convince Android users to use their messaging apps.
> Android devices are more than capable to hold their own against Apple's offerings nowadays and I haven't heard anyone complain about viruses and malware in like five years now.
Of course part of the reason for this is because Google put in a bunch of scary warnings when you try to install 3rd party apps, and Epic is so unhappy with these warnings making it difficult to distribute Fortnite outside of the Play Store that they decided to sue Google too.
Well, no. We already have two alternatives to the Google Play Services that are perfectly functional; MicroG and Huawei Play Service. I don't know why it would have to be "a mess", or "a crippled ghost town".
For me, the reason why iPhone are great are because of the hardware. FOSS alternatives to Apple's software that maintain compatibility are almost assured.
If Apple didn't allow 3rd parties into its app store, then it would be fine. Once you operate a platform for third parties to join, you have an responsibility to ensure that other platforms providing the same service are possible without interference. Otherwise, you're participating in anti-competitive behavior.
I'm assuming by hardware you mean iPhone, and software you mean iOS, and services you mean AppleTV/ApplePay/Music/whatever.
None of these are the main reason though.
The biggest reason you use an iPhone today is because it has Instagram on it, DoorDash on it, Amazon on it, Netflix on it, TikTok on it, and yes, even games like Fortnite on it.
And so... we get to this:
> Why can't you just leave us alone?
Because they want Apple to stop engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Without 3rd party apps, the iPhone is just a better phone. Being a general purpose computer is what makes it the behemoth it is today.
If you're using the OS as packaged by Google on their branded phones (i.e. in the same manner as iOS packaged by Apple for iPhones), why would it make any difference to you one way or the other?
Honestly I don't think Epic will hold out for something that large. If Apple and Google offer them a special break on IAPs or an exemption to the rule I bet they'll take it.
I don't think Tim Sweeney got into this fight to get a sweetheart deal. He has strongly held beliefs about platform rentiering and developer and app consumer rights. Epic could have negotiated a deal with Apple in private, instead they chose to maximize the publicity.
If Sweeney's beliefs are that strongly held then I expect Epic to pressure their partner Sony (Sony invested $250 million in Epic last month) to allow alternate apps stores on the PS5.
I mean, if you want to pay full price for your console, sure.
The console market only works if you sell the hardware under cost and then charge up the ass for services to the game developers ($50,000 was the price point for pushing updates on PS4)
Lets pretend that consoles are loss leaders (I don't believe they are).
The current system is structured to be as profitable as possible for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo and to keep competitors out. These companies aren't good guys looking out for me and you, they are looking out for the interests of their shareholders.
If the $50k price for updates is true, that's awful. It sets up a lot of bad incentives for developers. Consumers deserve much better than that.
Epic already fought Sony previously over the ability to have cross-platform interaction, and ultimately Epic won. They're not afraid to fight Sony and they used Fortnite in that battle to change PlayStation store rules too:
> The timing is pretty suspicious, coming a week after Congressional hearings where Tim Cook said they don't do the exact thing they just did with Epic.
There is one good thing having a walled garden with a centrally controlled payment system: it's good at dealing with fraud. If we allowed every app to have their own payment system, a bad problem is going to get infinitely worse.
> That way Epic Payments could swoop in as an alternate gaming-focused app store for mobile devices
Oh yeah I'm so excited at the thought of a second app store filled with "games" that have no guarantee they'll actually respect data collection, privacy, etc.
As a consumer I like that Apple keeps a firm hand on the standard of apps in the store, I have no guarantee that Epic will bother doing that at all.
There are entire cohorts of interested companies and industries that will be looking to benefit from a reduction in Apple's standard pricing policies.
Do we know how / if Apple charges SaaS companies who enable adding seats through their App Store apps? I'm thinking the likes of Slack, Trello, Zoom, Notion etc, I haven't heard that they get charged by Apple?
> If you have a complete billing system outside of the app and the user can never get to a page with signup or billing information from inside the app, then you can still avoid having to pay 30%.
I'm quoting [1], but from my expirience that's true, the problem comes when you link to your website without giving the option to pay with Apple system.
Slack doesn't have any direct link to add seats, I think that's how they avoid the 30%.
Why Spotify wouldn't do the same then ?
I think maybe because they target a more mainstream public that will not understand that they have to go to website to pay and then go back to the app?
Maybe they reckon that would be losing more than 30% without that flow, or I'm missing something.
Yeah that's interesting. I think the friction "Go to the website to signup" is worth them spending the 30% to have it in-app for Spotify, catering for the lowest denominator of user.
Not sure about everything in general, but games are specifically singled out as required to go through Apple's payment processing. Other non-gaming stuff might have different or more flexible options.
Apple has separate rules for purely business apps like Slack and Zoom, as well as a set of exceptions for Netflix, Spotify etc. Most other consumer-focused apps aren't allowed to do the same, so they have to offer an in-app subscription.
It will have an impact on everything. Richard Stallman predicted the social dangers of locked computing and he turned out to be more right than almost everyone expected.
As someone who doesn't play any games on my phone, and doesn't care at all about Epic, I guess the best alternative here for me, is that Apple just allow 3rd party app stores. I guess they could fully sandbox those stores so that those app stores had no device / user data access by default.
I'd always have the choice to install them, but I could continue to ignore them and still get the benefit of Apple's walled garden approach.
A lot of the articles and comments I have read, focus on the 30% cut. Which is definitely high, though primarily for those who sell externally licensed and/or non-digital goods.
But to me (with my almost decade long iOS developer experience), the bigger problems are:
* You cannot install apps on an iPhone (even on a phone that you own) without paying Apple. Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days.
* If you are an app that exists on other platforms, and/or accepts payments on other platforms, you can't describe that or even link to it, from your iOS app. Your users need to know that the alternative options exist on their own. See the Netflix sign in screen for a nice example, but realize that 99% of apps won't get away with that, only apps the size of Netflix can.
* You can only ship apps that Apple's inconsistent review board agrees with. And of course, the rules and their inconsistent application keep changing in favor of Apple's competing apps, which of course have access to internal APIs and don't pay a 30% cut either. Spotify is a good example here, but it's worse for many smaller companies.
* And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all.
Unfortunately there are many who drink the Apple koolaid about all of this being all about security. There are legitimately good things that Apple does which enhance user security, and I welcome changes like the new IDFA policy of iOS 14, but let's not pretend that Apple does those because they affect Apple's competitors' business and strengthen Apple's (you have to now use Apple's sdk for user tracking).
But none of the things I wrote about above are about the user, and some of them are actively worse for Apple's users (eg: not being able to buy a book on the Kindle app easily).
> Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days.
Can you elaborate on this? I have seen apps working for more than 7 days once installed.
Self-signing outside of the developer program lasts for 7 days. Historically, it used to last for a month. If you are part of the developer program, self-signing lasts for one year.
> * And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all.
Where did you get that information and what makes Apple Silicon different here?
I don't think you need any hardware support for that. And notarization already exists on intel macs, just that it doesn't prevent you from launching non-notarized binaries.
> There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now generated automatically by the linker. This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs
And as to >and what makes Apple Silicon different here
I guess this is a backwards-compatibility breaking change, but Apple Silicon is a new platform so there's nothing to break, all new binaries will have it from the start.
The linker doesn't sign every binary - it signs every binary it links - i.e. binaries you build on the machine.
That is not the same as it signing "every binary", otherwise there would be no point in signing in the first place.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, personally. I think code signing is a great idea. I just don't believe this single authority approach is the way to do it. I totally understand that as you already trust apple to provide the OS, it makes sense that you can trust them to sign apps - but that shouldn't mean you cant (as a user) choose to trust other parties.
Of course, they don't actually check the apps aren't malicious - they don't even check that you are a real person when you create a dev account... But they do have a signature they can revoke if your software is exposed as malware.
> And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all.
Do you have a source for this? I certainly haven't read this anywhere, but I also haven't been keeping a super close eye lately! This would both be really sad and would also essentially destroy the entire OSS community in macOS. (So I'd be very surprised if Apple actually made this change. It would also mean every numerical scientist would have to migrate off the Apple ecosystem, which would be a shame.)
Do you genuinely, honestly believe that this policy isn't going to be expanded?
The same way that we believed the original signing requirements would only be used to block specific malware, and not to enforce general policies?
There are already system-level APIs that are restricted to the Mac app store[0]. If you want to use Wireguard on Mac without going through the store, your best option is probably using the command line. That's crazy; in order to get a free VPN client with a GUI running, I'm being forced to give Apple a credit card number and an email address, and there's nothing the devs can do to get around that requirement.
> Apple has never used signing on Macs to block specific policies
This is literally what Epic just filed an injunction over. They're being blocked from Mac tools because of a dispute over payment methods, not because anyone thinks that Unreal Engine is literally malware.
My customers have iPhones. They want to install some private, custom business software that I built for them. Most of the time, I can build a web app to satisfy their needs. Sometimes I can't and that's when things get really annoying.
iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us.
Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year.
That's what I like about some of the Android phones. Some lets you disable the boot security and run whatever you want to. That being said, obviously the situation isn't perfect because most vendors only make the binary blobs available for android kernels and userspace...
We're a long way from a flagship class phone that you can install distros as freely as you can on a PC. I'm well aware of the Pine Phone and Librem, but they're both rather slow compared to a 2019 or 2020 smartphone.
I actually do all that stuff. I run desktop Linux. I don't have a Google account, a Facebook account, a LinkedIn account, or an Instagram account. I have an unlocked phone, on which I run F-Droid and only only open source apps. All Google user-visible apps have been removed. (Still stuck with Google Play Services for now.)
It's a pain. This is not a solution for the average user. I can't even use Uber, for example.
It's one that people often brush aside as "you made that choice when you got an iPhone" or "at least that prevents scamming apps and low-quality apps" but both of those don't seem right to me. For the first one, criticising a product while owning it isn't illegitimate. You can like a product for its strength but still see its incredible flaws. For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules.
>For the first one, criticising a product while owning it isn't illegitimate. You can like a product for its strength but still see its incredible flaws.
The problem is what you are calling a "flaw" is a feature to others. If you don't like that "feature", others are saying you should leave the ecosystem rather than lobby Apple to "fix" it.
>For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules.
It's acceptable collateral damage, and if those apps are truly great then someone people will (and have) switch to another platform. Just like if I get an XBox I can't play Playstation games.
IMO, if this was truly a great issue, people wouldn't choose iPhones. If you really care about being able to install software on your device, then don't buy an iPhone. It's even easier to make this decision because there is very few iPhone exclusive applications that do not have alternatives on Android. To me however, it comes across as the same lip service Linux gets where for users all these "power features" are important, but everyone just buys a macbook instead.
This argument made sense before the filesystem was encrypted. Also there's no reason the bootloader couldn't wipe the flash when it's told to load an unsigned kernel.
Everyone used to buy a Macbook, but not anymore - on one hand, precisely because of all these Apple's policies not being power-user-friendly, but also because there are other alternatives, WSL especially.
As for lack of sideloading being a feature - lack of features is only a feature, when those features can get in the way. The ability to opt into sideloading - as it's done on Android and Win10 - is not intrusive for those users who choose to not enable it. So, no, this can't really be sold under the guise of caring about the users. It's a policy that is in place to protect Apple's interests, and benefits no-one else.
> "you made that choice when you got an iPhone" or "at least that prevents scamming apps and low-quality apps"
There's a weird dichotomy that comes up in those kinds of arguments, where we simultaneously assume that people are so smart they'll know exactly what phone ecosystem they're opting into and what the consequences are, but also so stupid that they can't be taught to make informed decisions about which app stores to use.
Not to mention that a giant chunk of Apple's user retention policy is to make it as difficult and annoying to get out of their ecosystem as possible, which (imo) makes the "users would just switch if they were unhappy" argument really disingenuous. Apple is now tying credit cards to their phones. You're really going to get rid of your credit card because you're unhappy with the app selection on your phone?
That kind of user lock-in can't be separated from their efforts to force developers to use Apple payments for recurring subscriptions -- it's not just about the 30% revenue. It's also a nice way to make sure that switching from iOS to Android means literally all of your digital subscriptions break, and that it's impossible for you to cancel them or migrate them without going through Apple.
How did we go from a world where Microsoft got a half billion dollar fine for bundling a web browser with their OS to one where the vendor can stop the entire world from installing your app?
Because Microsoft leveraged a monopoly (Windows) to gain another monopoly (browser), which is illegal. App stores didn't exist prior to Apple's. Also, Apple's store didn't work on competing phones (not that there were any at the time), nor did it work on either macOS or Windows, it only worked on Apple's iPhones. It's like Amazon controlling what Kindle books exist, or Disney controlling what you can see at Disneyworld or buy at Disney+.
Monopoly does not mean “popular product” Apple isn’t even market leading, let alone dominant, and even if your dominant in a market you still might not have a monopoly.
I've been using vendor selected software repositories since before apple called them an app store and started charging everyone to use theirs. Linux has had them for years and years.
App stores did exist prior to Apple's. They just make it seem like they didn't by coining the usage of the word "app" instead of application or program. For example, the Xbox Live Marketplace launched in 2005, allowing users to purchase games, expansions, themes, backgrounds, avatars, and apps such as Netflix and Youtube. Other app stores that predate Apple's include Handango in 2003, Nokia Catalogs in 2005, and NTT DoCoMo's i-mode in 1999, the first integrated online app store for mobile phones.
imagine touting "security" while every single iphone gets jailbroken, over, and over, and over again. i don't understand the fanboyism. they are just as prone to flaws as microsoft, google, amazon, et al. they are not more or less secure than competing devices.
Not an Apple fan but I can recognize the "security" in a different sense we might find useful. It is more a delegation of the user mindset aspects of security than absolute "Cannot be exploited by state actor level funding and lacks zero days."
Not a thing for me but I can see how those who don't aspire towards experrdom or even "well-educated amateur" would find it useful and call it such.
AFAIK mobile Safari is the primary source of vulnerabilities on iOS, zero days regarding it cost less than on other platforms on the black market (supposedly because they are easier to find/exploit) but Apple doesn't allow to replace it.
You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store.
It sounds pretty ridiculous to type that... but it's the same basic argument. Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market. Every single person on this (HN) site has a competitive alternative if they don't like Apple policies. If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.
> If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.
Just because two cases can be abstracted to "monopoly on their own product" does not mean they are the same. Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case.
I am not sure of the source of that link but it is the only one I can find on the first page of DDG that suggests Apple has more than 50% of the smartphone market. Even if we take that link as fact it is not enough to constitute a monopoly.
Statcounter is based on web analytics [1] and thus measures browser usage, not device sales. Market research firms indicate Apple has 46% of the smartphone market by devices sold. [2] Also, the outcome in the Microsoft case was predicated on them having 90% market share in the operating system market at the time, which does not apply here.
Beyond a certain market share, that argument doesn't hold anymore. That's where anti-trust comes in.
Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not.
So Apple's percentage of global smartphones doesn't matter, what matters is:
- Apple's 2/3 share of app store revenues.
- Apple's share of users in rich, developed markets such as US, Europe and Japan, which (source: ben-evans.com) varies between ~50-70%.
It is unaffordable for app developers to skip the Apple platform, since that's where the majority of paying users are. And as a result, they should fall under anti-trust laws that protect small players.
Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not.
How many game developers will skip either Sony or MS unless they are paid for exclusives?
Why can’t Google and all of the Android manufacturers convince people with money that they should buy Android phones?
And from a user perspective, there is vendor lock-in and a strong network effect keeping them on a platform. "Don't like being abused? Switch to a different platform, necessitating a $500+ hardware investment" is utter insanity.
A phone is the average person's primary general computing device. Controlling what software they're "allowed" to run on it is wholly unacceptable, regardless of which laws are convenient to fix that issue.
Does the Epic Store allow for games which are free downloads, but where you pay for content directly from the developers rather than through Epic Store purchases? Would that be allowed?
Perhaps game developers should ship their games on the Epic Store, and use Epic's resources for management, distribution, discovery, and so on, but handle all transactions themselves so that Epic doesn't get any money out of it. That sounds fair, right?
This will be relevant when Fortnite becomes a general purpose platform hosting third party applications that is integrated into people’s life.
Wechat could be a better example, and yes, if we had the equivalent of wechat we’d be asking the same questions about their relations with third party apps.
Fortnite isn't a platform, it's only a game and has merchandising for that game. Based on your argument any movie franchise has no right to own rights to merchandise involving the movie.
> You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store.
If the only thing in the "Fortnite Store" is Epic's own products, that obviously isn't saying much and is incomparable to a store distributing third party software.
If the "Fortnite Store" is distributing third party software, and there is no viable alternative way to distribute that software, then it is a monopoly, because that's what a monopoly is. It's a thing with no reasonable substitutes.
The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. If there were competing app stores that could reach those customers or some other viable competing distribution method then they wouldn't have a monopoly on that market even if they still had complete control over "their app store" -- what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it.
It's the same way that Comcast has a monopoly on the network path to Comcast subscribers and uses it to collect rents from e.g. Netflix. Netflix can't reach those subscribers through any other path, there is no competition. You can't reach Comcast subscribers by peering with Verizon.
> The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices.
You keep saying this but it's unlikely that the courts will see it this way. The US legal system generally doesn't consider an aftermarket of a single brand's product to be a valid antitrust market unless specific exceptions are met. I've explained why in detail elsewhere. [1]
Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [2]
The court held that “the aftermarket is the relevant market for antitrust analysis only if the evidence supports an inference of monopoly power in the aftermarket that competition in the primary market appears unable to check.” [3]
When a manufacturer lacks market power in the primary market, an aftermarket restriction set forth in a purchase contract is generally safe from challenge under the antitrust laws. Numerous courts have rejected aftermarket claims based on contract provisions that exclude competition in an aftermarket. Because such restrictions are disclosed to customers at the time of purchase, customers can understand and plan for the aftermarket restriction before they are locked in. [4]
> what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it.
The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"?
> The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"?
Because flagship Android phones comparable to iPhone are not cheap enough to switch solely due to apps. This is a textbook monopolist argument: "if you don't like me, then you can always move out!"
What apps did most iPhone users actually pay for? Most of the money from the App Store come from in app purchases from play to win games. The other come from subscriptions that are cross platform.
That actually supports my point. Most of the apps are under $1 ~ $5, so the cost ratio between a phone and an app is extremely high. Why would I invest >$1000 into Android just to avoid paying $0.3 to Apple? You don't move your home because you don't like your local hospital. The exact same logic applies here.
If you agree that most money made on apps from within the App Store are from pay to win games, are you really shedding a tear over the lost revenue on loot boxes and coins to get past a level in Candy Crush?
As I quoted above, a key factor the court will consider is whether the customer knew of the restriction at the time of purchase, could have made an alternative purchase without the restriction, and went ahead and purchased anyway.
That is a district court case with no value as precedent.
And in that case, like most of the others regarding aftermarkets, the monopoly in the aftermarket is obtained merely by refusing to sell OEM parts (and thereby monopolizing the repair market). Apple isn't refusing to sell OEM screens and batteries -- I mean they are, but that isn't what we're talking about today -- they're using technological measures to purposefully exclude competitors for app distribution. That's a lot more brazenly anti-competitive than merely not selling parts and service independently.
It's also questionable whether you can really get away with calling the entire software market an "aftermarket" of the device market. It's like claiming that online retail is an "aftermarket" of the real estate market because the goods get shipped there. That's not exactly the same thing as the "aftermarket" for copier service, is it? It claims too much.
This is, similarly, predominantly an analysis of lower appellate court cases narrowing the Supreme Court's Kodak decision. The one you're quoting from is a 1st Circuit decision, whereas the case Epic filed is under the 9th Circuit.
And this is from your link, Page 6 of the FTC paper:
> 13. In the context of aftermarkets, a key question regarding product market definition is whether the aftermarket constitutes a relevant product market separate from the foremarket. The hypothetical monopolist test can answer this question—if a profit-maximizing hypothetical monopolist of an aftermarket (that is not a monopolist in the foremarket) would raise prices by at least a small but significant and non-transitory amount, then foremarket competition is not sufficient to prevent against anticompetitive behavior in the aftermarket; thus it is appropriate to analyze competition in a separate relevant market comprising the aftermarket.
If there was any doubt that this is true for the app store market, wasn't this the very thing Epic went out of their way to empirically prove? Epic is willing to charge less than 30% to distribute apps, and thereby charge lower prices to consumers. If the hypothetical monopolist in the "aftermarket" couldn't have charged more than Epic without hurting their sales in the primary market then how is Apple actually doing that? The claim that they would be making up for it by charging less for the product in the "foremarket" would require them to actually be doing so -- does Apple charge less for its phones than its competitors? (No.)
Likewise:
> Even where the original equipment market is a monopoly, however, if buyers understand that they are locked in (hence vulnerable to hold up), there will be no additional harm from hold up in the aftermarket–the monopolist cannot charge more in total than the buyer’s reservation price for the services generated by the equipment over its lifetime.
This falls apart for the app store market because it's a market like web hosting where there are customers on both sides -- the person buying "hosting" might also be selling something, but they're still a customer. So to avoid the market effects that are supposed to be constraining them, they only need to charge the fee to the developers who don't get to choose which phone their own customers have.
And then that's in fact what they do -- it's the develo...
> That is a district court case with no value as precedent.
The relevant cases are listed after the text I quoted, the quote is merely summarizing existing precedent.
> It's also questionable whether you can really get away with calling the entire software market an "aftermarket" of the device market.
I mean, it's your claim that the "iOS software distribution" market is a separate antitrust market that Apple has monopoly control over. Not the entire software market.
My point is that the courts are unlikely to see this narrow definition as a valid and separate market. If customers don't like the fact that they can only get apps from the App Store, they can simply buy a different phone that allows side-loading.
Otherwise, if we accept your premise that every company that controls the distribution of software on their own phone has an antitrust violating monopoly, then even a company with 1% smartphone marketshare would be liable, which makes no sense.
The rest of your post has to do with Apple's 30% commission and is kind of tangential to my main point. After all, even if they charged a 0% commission, according to your logic they would still "have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices ". For what it's worth I think Epic has a stronger case there.
The difference is that I fortnight isn't the only easy way to use my bank account or talk to my friends. Fortnight also isn't sold as a personal computer like the iphone is.
Epic's long term plan should be to enable cloud gaming support via an Epic mobile browser. Basically the Google Stadia approach (cloud based graphics rendering and only basic input controls and video decompression of the rendered graphics on the mobile device).
- Use codecs the underlying mobile safari browser can support.
- The browser stores your Epic login and launches to the default Epic homepage.
- Enable the Epic browser to generically surf the web to provide multipurpose functionality to follow existing precedent set by Firefox and Chrome on iOS Appstore.
At worst Epic can default to Mobile Safari itself if Apple still blocks a specific Epic browser (i.e. duplicate functionality) and show how people can make iOS safari shortcuts.
Rather than cloud streaming, I'd much prefer to see them target WebGL/WebGPU + WebAssembly. At near native speeds, distributed through the browser with the option of adding a PWA to the home screen to really get that native app feeling!
* Apple's payments API is very difficult to work with, especially compared to something like Stripe.
* Developers cannot disable their customers' subscriptions, or offer refunds. This has to be done through Apple. The leads to a poor customer service experience.
* If the customer uses their subscription through your website or moves to Android, they're still locked into the iOS subscription - making it impossible for them to upgrade/downgrade their plan.
* Customer's subscription is tied to their iTunes account. This leads to confusion if they sign into your app while signed into a different iTunes account.
I could go on. But having implemented Apple's subscription API, the frustration goes way beyond just the 30% fee (which is really my company's problem, not mine).
Oh I'm sure. We wanted to be able to automatically cancel your Apple subscription if you upgrade on Android or Web, but we can't. We do this for Android where we can programmatically cancel.
Part of the reason is that the entire purpose of the app store is not to be forced to give your private information to every Tom, Dick and Harry private vendor.
You cannot know what communications are taking place in the background.
"content blockers" are opt-out. When combined with the above, how can you possibly opt-out?
Apple promotes "privacy" as a marketing term, yet actively creates systems to degrade your privacy (ibeacon bluetooth beacons, deep links, preview links, advertising identifiers) and prevents systems from helping your privacy (little snitch for ios? adblockers?)
You get almost no ownership rights when you purchase something electronic/digital. All the ownership/freedom arguments run counter to DMCA, and I see no possibility of such an argument working in the US. The economic argument is the only one that may work in courts.
And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all.
This is not true. You can still run non notarized apps by control (?) clicking the first time.
> If you are an app that exists on other platforms, and/or accepts payments on other platforms, you can't describe that or even link to it, from your iOS app. Your users need to know that the alternative options exist on their own. See the Netflix sign in screen for a nice example, but realize that 99% of apps won't get away with that, only apps the size of Netflix can.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Apple changed the rules about account creation and outside payments/subscriptions in 2016(?) and they apply to every app now.
Yeah, while there are obvious issues with the old "30% cut from Spotify and Amazon ebook sales, and we just so happen to compete in those areas" situation...I'm more disturbed by the undue influence over what is the primary computing device of most people.
We've seen, time and time again, Apple ban apps for their "corporate moralism" reasons. Most notably, they throw a fit about nudity and reject apps over it. (Including social media apps where such content is accessible.) They also started banning "vaping related" apps, some of which are for controlling hardware, apparently. Philosophically, I have an issue with a company gatekeeping the software you run on your computing device, for any reason. It's not anyone's place to do that.
This could all be avoided with a legal mandate blocking such gatekeeping. The 30% issue is mitigated if you can install apps over the web, as well.
> * You cannot install apps on an iPhone (even on a phone that you own) without paying Apple. Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days.
I was excited to learn Swift last year but this killed my enthusiasm for making iOS apps.
Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
When I read hackernews a lot, I get the impression folks think these app stores are some kind of public commons.
And my second question:
Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves?
Third question:
What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
They should blame store/app provider. E-commerce over the web is pretty well established, don't think people blame Windows/Chrome when some shady site frauds them.
Logically, you're 100% correct. But I don't think most folks will reason it that way. Do you think a senior citizen will follow that reasoning? And then how will they contact the provider? What is the provider doesn't respond (for the case of simple refund request)?
Presumably other companies would run app stores and do things like refunds. After all there are already apps where you can buy stuff on your phone not through the app store (Audible, AirBnb, Amazon, etc). Why are apps any different?
Yeah, but how does Apple/Google determine if an app developer has the capability to do it and verify that they're consistently doing it? Or are we saying that only big companies with verified and known payment platforms can use their own payment system?
And then, how many bad experiences for these types of purchases (or articles about bad experiences) will customers tolerate before they stop trusting in-app or third party purchases? One? A hundred?
Apple and Google do not have that right, because as many headaches there are involved, killing their services cash cows would be abandoning their fiduciary duty to investors in an almost litigation-worthy boneheaded move.
Not sure I follow you. Do you mean, they won't do it because it makes a lot of money or do you mean they straight up don't have the right because of the economic platform they've created benefits a lot of people.
Just to be clear, I'm just trying to understand if folks think the app store is a public commons or is it private property?
Lots of the comments on this issue imply that the store is a public commons. And I'm wondering if that's a common view.
Because it makes a lot of money, Apple doesn't have the right to engage in such a self-sabotaging move because they are bound to their investors, who would be mad at them willingly destroying such a revenue stream. So debates about commons aside, the question is somewhat ludicrous because it's about as fanciful and applicable as "What if Microsoft released the Windows source code?"
A bit off-topic, but frankly, I think trying to use the Windows source code would be a liability for everyone but something like WINE. Just building it would be a trick, last I heard a full build of Windows took an entire day. I'm guessing it wasn't your beefy Dell machine building it, either. I'll bet there are so many pieces and custom tools and forgotten necessary settings on build machines that building it would be a nightmare. And then there is the test suite. I wouldn't trust a custom build of Windows, who knows all the subtle settings here and there that are necessary to get the same result. I think Microsoft could put the Windows source on GitHub tomorrow and the only thing that would happen is that they'd get a lot of bug bounties and an increase in the number of people they could hire who could just step in and start working without having the six-month ramp up in understanding the relevant code base.
> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
There might be legal issues with drastically reducing the functionality of devices after they've been sold, but I would imagine they could do this for new devices going forward. I think this points out a subtlety in the arguments of most people who take Epic's side in this struggle: it appears that Apple could avoid these allegations of anticompetitive behavior by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions placed on third-party software distribution. That's a little bizarre, but it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software (think game console, GPS devices, stereo receivers, car infotainment systems, the microcontroller in every switching power supply, etc.). Presumably the response to this subtlety is that "iPhones are general-purpose computers, but game consoles, etc. aren't," but I disagree with that both in theory and in practice based on what buyers of these devices expect to be able to do with the devices.
> it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software
Antitrust has always been about big companies abusing market power. These concepts are contestable, which means the law can only be enforced through expensive, time-consuming trials, but it doesn’t mean that the law is meaningless or not useful. The laws against assault and murder are also quite contestable in borderline cases of self-defence, but they are useful, and it’s easy to generate examples where the law is clearly not applicable just as with antitrust.
>Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
Are they offering to allow a replacement to enter in or effectively bricking devices (well soft brick, as they can still call and text)?
They wouldn't brick your device as the native apps would always be available.
In my mind, I'm toying over how committed Apple is to the customer experience. Apple always talks about the user experience first and if they honestly believe that a free and open store is a bad experience (just for the sake of discussion accept this point), would they consider ending the app store (say for all new devices) because they'd rather give a "great" experience rather than being forced to give one they believe is substandard. Essentially protect their brand.
I don't see Google ever doing something like that. But Apple... I dunno.
Google and Apple closing the stores would be a fantastic outcome.
The iPhone would no longer support third-party apps, and thus most iOS users will move to Android, and on Android, everyone will be familiar with installing apps from websites.
So in that world, all you need to do is develop only for Android and put up the .apk file on your website (using some sort of pre-made e-commerce software of your choice if you need to sell it), thereby getting rid of all censorship, friction, issues, rules, 30% fees, etc.
> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
Depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that they have a right to not run any of their apps stores anymore, then sure.
But I do not agree that they should have to right to force me, by law to not install other app stores on my phone. If I bought the phone, then I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my own property, including installing other app stores that 3rd parties voluntarily offer me.
> think these app stores are some kind of public commons.
It is not about public commons. Instead, it is about physical property that I purchased, the device, that I own.
> Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers
I don't care. That is not my problem. That is not an excuse for apple or google to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property.
> What's a customers recourse
If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am not trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services.
> If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services.
This is an interesting answer. It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Or is it that you're concerned about apps you like not being available due to contract disputes? Could you elaborate?
> It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app?
Because those costs inevitably either get passed down to the consumer, or mean that there are less resources to make the game, which results in a worse experience for me, the customer.
I don't want Apple to force everyone to give them a cut, because that is real money that would either stay in my pocket otherwise, or would provide more resources to game companies.
More money that stays in developers pockets means that they are incentivized to make more games or spend more resources on them. Or it can result in more developers entering the space, because there is more money overall to get.
Apple isn't providing any value to me here, that I could not get elsewhere, if there were competing app stores. I don't want them to force everyone to give them that money.
(And no, I dont' accept the argument that Apple's app store would always be significantly better than everyone else's, so much so that they deserve a full 30%, automatically. If they end up being better, thats fine, but I still want competition, and for other app stores to be able to compete fairly)
I get it. You're saying if Apple takes less of a cut, then that savings will trickle down to me.
The stunt by Epic, aside, has that ever happened to you? Has your Netflix bill ever gone down because they secured a better discounting with their cloud service providers due to their growing volume?
That's never happened to me (but maybe my experience is unusual)
But for the sake of discussion, let's explore how this might play out.
If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings (and hopefully pass it on) or take some percentage of that saving and channel into their new acquired support costs. They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?
The big developers will hopefully act responsibly and balance the savings with their new support costs.
But what about the small(er) ones? Will these 2-10 people developer shops be prepared for the support costs? What if the support costs are greater than the savings?
> The stunt by Epic, aside, has that ever happened to you?
Think about the opposite situation.
Imagine that Apple charged 90% of the costs of having a game on the app store. How many game companies do you think would make games for that? My guess: probably not many.
> If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings
Also, even in this situation, with the game developer pocketing all the savings, I would much rather prefer them doing this, than Apple taking the money.
To re-iterate, even if we agree that the money would not go to the consumer, and not trickle down at all, I still want this to happen.
This is because now there is more money in the gaming industry, which means that there is now more reason for game developers to make games. So I still want that to happen. Because it means that there is more reasons for developers to make games.
That is still much better than if Apple gets the money.
> They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?
Yes, and those costs are much much cheaper than 30%. It is not even close. Paypal charges 3% costs. So that is where the prices would probably go to.
> What if the support costs are greater than the savings?
They won't be. 30% is a very large number. But even if we agree that they are, in some small percentage of cases, then those companies can feel free to continue to put their service on the Apple app store. So you can't use that argument.
If other app stores are bad, then people will just list it on the app store instead, and you can't use this argument.
I don't want to force companies to put their app on other app stores. I just want it to be an option. That way the best app store wins. Problem solved.
So, to say again, even if the game developers pocket all of the money, I still rather that happen than Apple getting a dime, by forcing people to use their app store.
I will go even further, actually, and say that even if there is zero proven benefit to consumers, by either trickle down prices, or because of more games being produced (due to game devs having more resources, by pocketing everything, and using those resources to make better/more games), I would still rather my money go to game devs, because philosophically I consider it to be their game, and they deserve the money more than Apple.
> "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
Maybe something like "turns out games aren't a great fit for the app store." then they just boot the entire games category off the app store and only allow games on apple arcade.
>Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
Its not a headache, it's basically a money grab at this point, 30% of sales of a digital-only product. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
>And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves?
>Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
There are many ways to build payment platforms without letting Apple rob 30% of your sales. For e.g. Paypal has consumer protection polices. Buyers can dispute transactions/services, etc.
As long as they allow for users to install applications onto their phone, including other stores, then I don't think anyone will have a problem.
Every pre-installed Apple app has a better 3rd-party alternative, it would be no different for the store.
Undoubtedly if Apple allowed other companies to handle app discovery, the experience could be one or two order of magnitudes better, for both consumers and developers.
> And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves?
They would blame the person that ripped them off. If I take my car to a local garage and get defrauded it would be stupid to blame the car manufacturer.
> Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
You call the bank and say "hey, I have a fraudulent charge on my credit card" and they give you your money back. There's zero liability for the user. Plus, I'd way rather ask my bank to do a chargeback against a no name scammer than against Apple, Google, Amazon, or Microsoft.
What happens if your kid gets scammed via IAPs, spends $5k, and Apple sides with the developer? What's the result of a chargeback against Apple if you're massively invested in their platform?
Online payment processing is a solved problem. I think things like Apple Pay are fantastic as a system we can opt into, but I'd much rather have the current system of credit card processors with all the regulation and consumer protection that comes along with it.
Can fortnite run in browser?
Would be nice if they could just do that and show genzoom that they dont need to discover interesting content via an appstore app only.
Currently learning webdev, so I'll give the best answer I can:
You could probably use canvas and recreate all of Fortnite, but it would be a remake, not a simple port. There are existing libraries that could be used to load models and perhaps animate them, but... it would take a while, and there would be major FPS issues. Javascript is much less efficient than native apps.
I agree on the "can't install apps from outside the app store". That's probably the best way to fix this.
As long as Apple controls the app store, this will always be an issue, and it doesn't matter precisely what the % cut is. The reality is, very few people would argue that Apple "deserves" some cut of app sales for developers who choose to use the Apple App store. But it's impossible to disentangle this issue from in-app payments. If in-app payments are royalty free, then every app will become "free" with an in-app purchase to make it do anything at all, to game the system. But if Apple gets a cut of in-app purchases, there will always be this grey area of "what if I purchase a subscription using another website" or "what if I use a free app to access my paid Netflix account", and so on.
As a way out of this Apple should create an alternative for people to run alternative app stores, but disable iOS updates and Apple services on those products and offer them at a cost. People discount the fact that apple provides free software updates (that would cost $100s + in the past) for Free. If a user wants out of the apple ecosystem, Apple should enable that and demand a fair price for the services otherwise sustained by the way mobile economics are currently structured.
Maybe another way to look at this is, if apple / google decides not to have an app store at all, would anyone find that wrong?
iphones will only have apps produced by apple. If any other company, say a game producer wants their game on the phone then you have to license the game to apple for 30% royalties. Apple then makes the game available on the phone. Is this still an issue legally or in terms of fairness?
Thanks for the clarification. The Steam Link app throws a little bit of a wrench into the argument since you could purchase a game and remotely install it with the Steam app then switch over to the Steam Link app to play it on the platform.
339 comments
[ 21.5 ms ] story [ 694 ms ] threadTencent and Chinese companies would benefit from being allowed to operate their own app stores or side load apps, which would allow them to significantly reduce the impact of Trump’s current and future actions.
why would separate app stores limit government jurisdiction?
Whereas now, if the government tell Apple to remove an app from their App Store worldwide then it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to download it. In the past I don’t think the CCP minded - in fact, they were probably happy about it since it made it much easier to censor apps they didn’t like. Whereas now they’re freaking out since they risk having all their apps blocked from all Apple devices worldwide.
So to me it seems mostly Tim's personal battle. Obviously in the end it's all about money, but Tim seems to genuinely want all game developers (not just Epic) to get a larger cut of the pie as opposed to the platform holders.
The stated purpose of the Epic game store on PC is to give developers a larger cut compared to what Steam was giving them.
I don't think there's any reason to suspect a shadowy cabal of CCP interests when there's plenty of reason why Epic would want to do this out of self interest.
It might be that is just not worth for such a massive game to be free to play, if you can't extrat enough profit from paying users.
They are making lots of money.
I guess my point was, if what is left for shareholders is not "that much" compared with the opportunity cost (the loss of not being doing something else) then it might make sense to put the iOS on hold and let the lawyers fight.
But I'm speculating, I'm just trying to understand the incentives in play, becuase I don't buy the 1984 video, pretending they care about what is fair.
In an incident where even fully US-based organizations were caving to maintain these Chinese market, Tim went full "I don't care what China thinks about what our players say on streams".
Pretty sure Tencent is just in it for the money, Epic's a pretty good investment.
It would be interesting if Fortnite allowed people to make/sell custom skins and see how they would react to a Winnie the Pooh/Xitler skin.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Epic had been in touch with state AGs filing antitrust lawsuits. The timing is pretty suspicious, coming a week after Congressional hearings where Tim Cook said they don't do the exact thing they just did with Epic. You can't launch a new product in a week.
I am not thrilled by the idea of uneven developer access to the primary channels. Now I pay Apple 100$ and the %30 commission and I have my apps right next to the big boys. Apparently the big boys are planning to get free of the %30 and have their own walled garden where potentially I am not allowed.
There's a risk of proliferation of a business model that is possible on the Epic Store but not on AppStore and I am not welcome to join.
As a developer I would prefer a regulation to the AppStore for even access instead of alternative appstores.
Is this even working on Android or anywhere?
That's not that big a problem for established and big companies but it is something that I am not looking forward to.
They still blocked few very controversial titles that include rape and some other crazy shit, but otherwise almost anything can be published on Steam.
https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/1270568780712706049
https://ericasadun.com/2015/11/11/finding-triviata-on-the-ap...
How does also having the potential to distribute on another app store make it worse?
That's only good for having to say that you have an app. Putting that app in the hands of the people is a different story and it's the hard part.
When there are multiple app stores, you can only access the people on that app store which can drastically reduce your market size. It is not realistic to be able to make people install and set up an app store and then install your app. Yeah sure, you can convince few very interested people every now and then but on mobile this doesn't make a business.
It is likely that the original App Store will shrink as some people will move to other stores where you might not be allowed to publish. Also, multiple stores creates support nightmare for the users since they will no longer be able to talk to Apple and get their refunds. People would no longer be confident when doing a purchase. This is very bad for independent developers who are not hobbyist but hope to make living.
Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
IMHO:
1) AppStore should be regulated to give equal opportunity to all. Right now there are some problems but it is not broken. An idea would be to have an special API to provide alternative appstore through backend integration but have all this completely invisible to the users. For example, maybe you should be able to link to an alternative appstore but the install process be exactly the same as the original AppStore, payments handled exactly the same but get the commisions to bare minimum when the provider is the alternative appstore. This is like the "repository" concept on Linux app stores, the problem is the customer support when something goes bad. It doesn't work well when the users don't have someone holding both the responsibility and the power to solve their problem. How is Apple supposed to handle the help request due to issues caused by other stores?
2) Jailbreaking should be an option provided by Apple. People should have the freedom to jailbreak their device and do whatever they want with it. Probably should be hard to do to make sure that it's done only by people who know what they are doing.
3) Commissions should probably differentiate for stuff like Spotify v.s. In game coins because on Spotify, they actually don't sell their original content but deal it by buying it from the musicians.
But that's the case with the current app store already isn't it? At least with competing app stores I could publish my app _somewhere_ if Apple rejects it.
I don't think regulating the app store or forcing them to transparently integrate other app stores would work either. Allowing _anyone_ to publish an app store would have it's own issues, so I think it would have to be gated by money. Ex: Apple can charge $1 million to publish your app store. That would exclude me from running an app store, but also excludes bad actors.
Apple also has a huge lead with services that support iOS devs, so it's not like someone will build a competing store that's on par immediately. If a new Epic store needed to re-implement everything Apple has _and_ provide those features via a stable API, they still have a huge uphill battle because if both stores are equal, devs will prefer the Apple version since it would be the default on all devices.
I don't really get the argument I see with people being reliant on Apple for refunds. On the PC, it's an expectation for a store to have a refund policy where you can automatically collect a refund. It would be the same on mobile if they wanted to compete. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on good customer service even though they've done a really good job of convincing people they do.
> Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
I really disagree with that. Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it. Now I get no guarantees and since I'm a small developer I have no negotiating power. I don't have a big social media following and if Apple or Google refuse to publish my app it's tough luck for me. Large incumbent developers can pick up the phone and talk to someone at Apple or Google. Small developers can't.
I agree the pricing isn't much of an issue for small developers. You can plan around that and I think it's safe to assume prices aren't going up anytime soon. It's losing the ability to be guaranteed you can publish your app that's the problem. I said the same thing when the app store was new. If I'm developing a custom LoB (line of business) app for another small business, how can I guarantee them I'll be able to get it on their devices? I can't and the enterprise programs aren't an option for a one off LoB app. You'll notice that kind of stuff doesn't really exist on the mobile app stores and everything has trended to large SaaS offerings. There used to be a market for custom small business apps on the PC and that's completely disappeared in the last decade because of the walled garden app stores.
IMHO it would be possible for someone to run a better app store than Apple and that's what they're afraid of. Even though the "quality" of the app store is touted a lot around here it's filled with garbage. Watch a kid play a game for 30 minutes and you'll see a ton of ads for other low effort games where the whole ecosystem is similar to advertising click fraud. The number of un-closable, misleading, click incentivizing ads in kids games is appalling.
So I can imagine an app store that caters to high quality apps and games for kids where everything is paid up-front (no IAP) and there are no ads. It's that kind of niche, super high quality curation that I think Apple and Google are terrified of.
> Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it
Publish and do what with it? Collect kudos from strangers? That's not good, I can't live on kudos, I should be able to do business. Surely you can adopt a business model where you collect and sell data about your users or sell access to your users(known as browser extension business) but I find that business model unethical and I don't want to be involved in it.
Business happens when money change hands, writing code and putting it out there is not a business(unless you are payed to do it for someone but that's a different situation). After a communist revolution things may change but until then, that's how it is.
To give you an example, I once sold a small, single screen app to a local business for about $2k.
That’s not great money, but at least is was something and still better than working a minimum wage job. Once I was done I knew 100% I could give them a Windows installer that would work for a very long time.
With the App Store model I don’t think I could have said yes to doing that work because the risk of not being able to deliver. The risks there would be eating the cost of the development and loss of reputation since they’d be annoyed at spending a bunch of time and getting nothing out of it.
Now things have come full circle and LoB apps would all be web apps.
Would not be that much of a stretch to support also Android.
Between safe, secure payment technologies such as (heh) Apple Pay and and safe, secure login systems such as (heh) Login with Apple, then really its super easy to not worry too much about the signup friction.
If Epic can't get an indie title as an exclusive, they're not interested in having the game on their store.
ref. https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivit...
Fortnite is a software platform and the market is part of the software.
Apple is an Hardware company which also chose the software you can run on it, which also owns the only market where you can buy software for.
That's a pretty different situation.
TLDR: Apple can sell Apple stuff exclusively on their e-store, they shouldn't force third party developers to sell their stuff only on their mobile store.
Because it's the part that people should own after they bought it.
You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
Many probably like it that way, that's not the point, the point is that if Safari is the root of many exploit for iOS (https://twitter.com/Zerodium/status/1260541578747064326) users cannot disable it and replace it with something else, something more secure
That completely hinder the free (as in freedom) utilization of the device
> If Epic sold a "Fortnite tablet" would this somehow change the legality of Epic's monopoly on selling digital items in Fortnite?
Of course it would!
It would be a monopoly nonetheless
Even though a table that can only play Fortnite cannot clearly be classified as general computing platform.
But it would probably be based on Android, being iOS not available for third parties, and allow sideloading.
The same point could be made about Amazon and the Kindle, but Amazon allows self publishing and direct sell for free.
Why? Is that just an arbitrary principle? Why should "hardware" be something we have absolute control over, but "software" is not?
> You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can use an iPhone without using the App Store. But in both cases, it's probably just not as good of an experience.
> You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
That seems like some rhetorical gymnastics that could be applied to any product or service. You can't use cheating software in Fortnite either (or at least they presumably have measures in place to prevent it).
> Of course it would!
Okay, then you're consistent. I'll give you that. Presumably you think courts should require manufacturers of literally all electronic devices to provide an easy way for owners to run any software they want?
I don't disagree with the general sentiment but
1) hardware is your property, you buy it and you should be able to use it the way you want. Also it's harder to replace it, you can easily change the gas station, it's harder to change a car.
2) the problem with Apple (but also Google Play store in many ways) is that you buy hardware capable of doing something that the software doesn't permit. Not because it's not capable of doing it, but because the manufacturer don't want you to use it that way.
But in the general you're right, I'm a big advocate of free software, and I've been since the middle 90s, because I think you should have total control over it. Including changing the parts that don't fit your needs.
I'm also in favour of using cheats if you want to, but in a tournament things have to be fair and that's where I think you shouldn't use them, in the same way I think doping at the Olympic games should not be allowed.
It's hard for me to root for either Apple/Google or Epic, but if Epic's action is the beginning of the end of exclusive stores, then go, Epic, go!
Now, there may be some interesting changes for the players and I here I am genuinely unsure, which one is least bad .
I am watching this fight unfold and see no one I am willing to back here. But.. the resulting fight may end up having good results for the customer.
Time will tell.
That's ironic given that the Epic Store is quite well known for buying exclusive rights to new game launches.
There are so many ways to distribute PC games and software, you cannot even begin to enumerate half of them.
Mostly the same on Android too. With a simple toggle, you can then install other App Stores like Amazon's, etc. Many phones come with alternative App Stores pre-installed too.
A game developer selling an exclusive to Epic is much different. They're not gatekeeping the platform which is the PC and no one is being forced to use the Epic store for distribution to get their games on the PC.
So to get access to 100% of the market on mobile platforms, you MUST deal with Apple AND Google. To get access to 100% of the market for anything on the PC platform you MAY deal with Epic, Steam, all of the above, or self-distribution. The difference is that developers get to choose which distribution strategy and platform makes the most sense for them in terms of cost, support, target audience, etc..
It's like if Walmart and Target were the only stores in North America and most buyers only shopped at one or the other. Would "choosing" not to sell your product at Walmart be a real option at that point?
This is why we can't have nice things.
It's entirely possible to lose money on consoles. Microsoft wrote off such a huge loss on the first XBOX, between $5bn and $7bn, that counting inflation on the losses they probably still haven't made a profit off it.
The other problem with that is it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market. The up front cost is device losses would be staggering. It was bad enough for Microsoft as it is.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing on that their console business is composed of many streams and focusing on one part of it to the exclusion of others is deceiving. Supposedly, Return of the Jedi has never made money yet they kept making Star Wars movies.
> it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market
I disagree. It's harder to compete with competitors that are selling their product below the cost of production. I've always wondered if an EU-based company came out with a console, what would happen? I think Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would be forced to sell their consoles at or above cost in the EU or face dumping charges.
It seems to me that if the consoles cost 1/3 more they would sell fewer of them (Lots of empirical evidence for this), and therefore sell fewer games and make less revenue on services to their smaller customer base, who now can by games from other publishers without the console vendor making a penny. After all isn’t the point of this to cut off their other revenue streams at the knees? I may well be missing something though.
http://kdk-javadocs.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
I don't think Apple is prepared for that future. I can imagine Google & Amazon making app stores that run on iOS, but I can't see Apple making an App Store For Android.
(Imagine if Google could also have an iOS App Store, and you could buy software once on Google Play Android, and the same purchase also ran on iOS devices via Google Play For iOS. Would you keep buying software from Apple?)
Because they are buying a brand.
If Play Store will start selling iOS apps, the same iOS apps they already know, at a discount they will immediately buy them.
Because they are human after all.
Is there something similar to this for iOS apps?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/5/21355997/microsoft-your-ph...
Apple announced that all iOS apps will run side by side with macOS apps when the ARM apps are released.
Microsoft Windows 10 can run on any compatible hardware I want, including virtual hardware (Mac OS cannot be legally virtualized on non Apple HW)
Microsoft doesn't make Android and doesn't even manufacturers smartphones anymore, they'll embraced it as a compatible platform, as they did with Linux.
From a developer standpoint that's a big step forward, from the user standpoint it reduces the friction between mobile and non mobile platforms, now they can run their apps on the most popular OS that they can run on practically any x86 HW they own. It's a pretty radical change.
Apple running Apple doesn't change much
Can you see the difference?
50% of users in the US own iPhones.
If you don't understand the difference between choice and no choice, I think you have bigger problems.
If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
I do expect they will be forced to make at least sideloading possible
> If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
nobody expects businessmen to be decent human beings, nobody expects that from a US company, but Prada, for example, can't force you to wear Prada shoes if you bought a Prada dress.
If you wanna buy Gucci shoes, you don't have to go through the Prada store that charges you 30% just because you can't escape it.
What the majority of the people here are saying is that Apple margins are artificial and built on having an unescapable walled garden
It is like luring people in a Mall and closing the doors
Of course they are going to buy only from shops inside the Mall, but what if they could go shopping somewhere else?
Why is Apple so afraid of it?
If their product is superior, people will buy it anyway.
Right?
---
Of course there is more to it
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to.
Apple does not permit to advertise in apps different ways of creating an account on third party services, which obviously gives an unfair advantage to Apple, if you are Spotify and can't tell people how to create an account outside of the iOS is one thing, but if you are a news outlet and can't advertise your website (where you collect ads or advertise different payment profiles) that's really hindering publishers and user's rights (it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it - and there is only one option available while there are more on their website)
Ny Times can maybe handle it, but what about smaller companies/publishers?
Apple thinks that if the app doesn't work user would think it's s device problem, but if buying things from apple store costs more, users will think that publishers are to blame, and publishers are usually not worth 2 trillions and can't afford the bad PR the same way Apple can.
You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge?
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
People still use slow BT transfers? Why? This isn’t 2004. There are much better ways to transfer files.
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to
Sure it is. SMS.
it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it
It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store. I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
You mean the same argument that Apple fanboys have been repeating over and over, except that I can side load apps on Android and consoles are hardly needed (smartphones are)?
BTW I can buy new and used games at GameStop
Does an AppleStop exist?
Can I buy used apps on the aftermarket?
I can sell the same song on Spotify, Bandcamp, on my website directly and also have a patreon.
Can I do the same with an app for iPhone?
Spotify is also different because they mostly sell copyrighted material owned by a copyright holder which usually is not the author.
It's more like Apple music, which I don't have a problem with since there are alternatives and I can watch the content on other devices (the apps are available on the play store, for example) and Apple is making deals with labels, the same labels that sell to Spotify or YouTube
But to be completely honest, it would be great if MS, Sony, Spotify etc etc were forced to open up their platforms because they are found using unfair competition tactics.
But Apple IMO is the worst offender of the lot.
> Sure it is. SMS.
It isn't though...
My plan doesn't include SMS
I have unlimited data, unlimited phone calls, but no SMS
So, again, Apple is reducing user experience to lock users in.
also: SMS travel in clear text
So much for security...
> It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store.
Because there is a grocery store available
Where is the Apple grocery store?
> I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors
And competition is good
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
So it's like you put your product at best buy and best buy put it out like it was a best buy product
Would you like it?
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy.
But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
But I prefer to think that it's just Apple forcing people to defend their abusive behaviour online
It makes me feel less sad for those who really believe Apple is the good guy
So it’s Apple’s fault that your plan doesn’t have SMS?
Where is the Apple grocery store?
It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors And competition is good Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
Apple has plenty of competition. I go into a cell phone store, I see dozens of phones besides iPhones. Just like when I go into GameStop I see three incompatible consoles.
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy. But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I don’t complain on the internet about Android or Windows. I choose the alternative. I didn’t need the government for that. Free will is great isn’t it. I also didn’t complain back in the day that Nintendo only allowed certain types of games - I bought an alternate console.
Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
It's Apple fault to not make an iMessage app for Android though
My friends with iPhones don't even know that when they are messaging with me I receive an SMS, because Apple never made it clear that iMessage is Apple only
SMS by the way is not a chat protocol, it's an alerting protocol
So Apple is using it wrong
> It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
Android is not Apple competitor.
Android is iOS competitor and prior was Windows Mobile or Blackberry competitor.
In fact you can install a different OS on Android phones, you can't on Apple phones and that's the point, if it's a closed platform, it's a closed market, different from other markets and Apple is a monopolist in it.
You are conflating you arguments with meaningless comparisons.
> I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
You would if the chinese store forced you to buy pizza from them because you have chinese pottery at home
I don't know why is it so hard to understand that these arguments are childish at best
> You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
No, you are not on Apple store.
From their developers' guidelines
Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1
> Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
I imagined that before engaging in a discussion you read the relative documentation ...
I guess you didn't
> Apple has plenty of competition
It does not.
It's artificial competition.
The point is Apple is a market per se and is a monopolist in that market.
If only people could have some degree of freedom it would be a different situation.
> I choose the alternative.
THere's no alternative to Apple, Apple is a different closed ecosystem.
When you'll understand that, everything will be clearer.
> I didn’t need the government for that.
Iḿ sorry to state it like this, Iḿ Italian and my english is decent at best, but who cares what you need?
I don't need a doctor right now, but I'm happy the government of my country is funding a public healthcare that can take care for free of people who need it and/or couldn't afford it if it was an expensive procedure
> Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
They weren't complaining, they were stating the obvious, in fact MS was sentenced for "abuse of dominant position"
Sun Microsystem raised the complain and won.
Epic is doing the same to Apple, and will probably get some satisfaction.
> What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
What do you say of people that constantly assume?
> If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
The same apps that are profitable on iOS are profitable on Android, but they cost less for the user and the developer have the possibility of earning more
You can play Fortnite on Android even if Google removes it from their store.
Can you do the same on iOS?
Let me tell you a little story about game call Tekken x Street Fighter. Back when I bought it was $40 from GameStop. But when you bought the physical game, 7 or 8 characters were locked until you paid for them digitally - another $15 in Sony’s “walled garden”. Guess what happened when you bought the game used? The next person still had to pay the $15. So sure you can buy the disc used but you can’t buy half the content.
Can I buy the Carlton dance on Fortnite used? Can I sell all of the virtual items I bought on Fortnite? Can I buy items and use them on the “Fortnite platform” without giving Epic a cut? Epic has just as much of a “monopoly” on the Fortnite platform as Apple does on iOS.
See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
The in app purchase of digital goods is a can of worms on its own, but completely orthogonal to the issue at hands with Apple monopoly.
I would argue that the fact that Apple forces publishers to go through in app purchase for everything related to money exchange between the publisher and the user is even worse than being a monopoly
I think creating a walled garden where they are the sole ruler and dictator it's unfair, but profitting from shady practices like selling items in games that more oftne than not are played by kids, it's criminal
I don't like Sony, MS, Google, Facebook, Epic etc. etc. more than Apple.
Simply on this matter I think Epic is right and Apple wrong.
I don't take parts with companies, only my side as a user.
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
> See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
It is silly to not understand context.
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Imagine they said it was for your own safety, because you are unable to discern good from bad, but at the same time dozen of celebrities had their private pictures and videos leaked because the Sony cloud is not as secure as they say...
Would you still trust Sony?
Isn’t this exactly what Epic is doing with Fortnite?
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly” on buying digital goods on Fortnite? Could I set up a “virtual store” within Fortnite and sell “cool” dance moves? If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store? Can I resell virtual goods I buy in Fortnite?
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Apple didn’t remove the game from individuals devices. In fact, if you have already downloaded the game and you wipe your device, you can still redownload Fortnite from the App Store?
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
How it is that relevant to Apple monopoly?
> How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly
Well, I guess that if you are a functioning adult you are able to figure out yourself the difference between a game that you can only use for playing the game and a computing platform that you can use for practically everything
Of course Epic has a monopoly on Epic games, Apple has a monopoly on Apple Mail, that's how the author rights work
> If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store?
Sue them.
Or make Apple do it.
Can you guess why nobody is doing it?
Because you can https://www.epicgames.com/affiliate/en-US/overview
I thought you were working for a FAANG, how did you make it without being able to do a simple search?
> Apple didn’t remove the game from individuals devices
Not yet.
But they potentially could.
And you know why they haven't removed it?
Because the version available on people's phone still relies on their payment processor for in app payments.
I still have to give Epic a cut. Why can’t I accept credit cards on the Epic platform and bypass Epic’s “walled garden”?
Because the version available on people's phone still relies on their payment processor for in app payments.
The version on the phone allows people to bypass Apple’s in app payment.
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
The original sin was to allow in app purchases for consumables in games to fester on iOS in the first place. I would be fine if all games had to either be paid up front or allow you to pay for levels you keep.
Count to 10 and ask yourself the same question in front of a mirror
I'm sure you'll find the right answer
(Epic is not complaining that Apple takes a cut, but that the only way to ask for money to users is go through Apple store, which doesn't make Epic software, if Apple asked it only for Apple software, that would be much less of a problem)
Why do people think this is an effective argument? In any other context, noting that prices are standardized across the entire market would be strong evidence that the market was not competitive.
If you went into a shoe store and every shoe in the shop was $49.99, that's pretty good evidence that the shoe manufactures are not competing with each other over price the way that they should be.
You look at something like gas prices, service industries, physical goods, games, online payment providers -- you see lots of different prices and fees, deals, and marketing strategies. You don't see a standardized price that's universally applied to everyone, because the companies are actually competing with each other to attract customers with diverse offerings.
An unspoken agreement between every digital storefront to charge developers 30% fees on even unrelated services is bad. On more open platforms, you don't see that: Steam, Epic, GoG, Itch, and Humble all have different fees because they're actually competing with each other and it's actually possible for upstarts to disrupt the market.
Epic is actively suing Google for using anti-competitive practices to force phone makers not to include 3rd-party app stores on their phones[0].
One example they bring up:
> Epic struck a deal with OnePlus to make Epic games available on its phones through an Epic Games app. The Epic Games app would have allowed users to seamlessly install and update Epic games, including Fortnite, without obstacles imposed by Google’s Android OS. But Google forced OnePlus to renege on the deal, citing Google’s “particular[] concern” about Epic having the ability to install and update mobile games while “bypassing the Google Play Store”.
If you want to show that sideloading doesn't make a difference for storefront fees, you should pick a company not currently being sued for antitrust to demonstrate it.
----
> You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there?
You can't sideload on a console, I don't know what you're getting at.
In regards to price fixing on consoles: you're right, the console situation is also bad. We effectively have only 3 major consoles, and a reasonably high barrier of entry into the space for similar reasons as mobile phones. Of course, the console space is better (in no small part because the PC market exists), and console manufacturers do compete more for developers than Apple and Google do. But it's not perfect, and as a result, you still see some issues around competition.
It took direct action from developers like Epic to even force the issue on cross-play, which is a decent sign that console manufactures really didn't feel like they needed to compete with each other in that area.
However, it is generally ill-advised to sue every single major games distributor at the same time, so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas first.
The whataboutism doesn't really work here. Yes, console sideloading would probably be good for the market, it's just not as big and immediate of a problem as Apple is -- in part because more people own iPhones than an Xbox, in part because the barriers of entry to console competition are slightly lower, and in part because the PC games market provides somewhat of an escape hatch for console games, and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
[0]: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21759099/f...
Epic is the problem in the case of Fortnite. They are no more ethical than the Candy Crush, Farmville’s of the world.
What happen to HN users who love Big Government wanting fo go after all of the “game” companies who were milking consumers selling loot boxes and virtual currency?
and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
That escape hatch is called Android.
But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves. If the entire play to win games completely disappeared nothing of value would be loss.
If Apple made a rule banning in app purchases for games or at least banning consumables, it would be a better experience for customers. The entire pay to win mobile game ecosystem is a bigger stain on the iPhone than in app purchases.
I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
It’s strange
HN: We want government to be more involved in tech.
Government: okay let’s pass laws against net neutrality, against strong encryption, the DMCA, COPPA and force the sell of TikTok and the governmebt should get a cut.
HN: oh no. The government abuses power and doesn’t understand tech. But the government will get it right next time.
Did you watch the hearings of the four CEOs? The same hearing where the biggest concern on one side was that tech was being mean to conservatives and grilled Zuckerberg about Twitter’s treatment of Don Jr.? Is this the government you trust to regulate tech and not do more harm than good?
No one has been able to rise to the challenge - name one good law that the US government has passed in the last 40 years with regard to tech - either Democratic or Republican.
This is a weird take. Do you think net neutrality isn't a government regulation?
How can anyone look at the early Bell systems regulations, telephone breakups, forced network compatibility with 3rd-party answering phones and network devices and think, "now that's a market that thrived without the government?"
The entire history of the Internet and the tech industry, from regulations around smart-phone unlocking and number porting, to net neutrality itself is a giant example of how forcing the market to be competitive against its will is sometimes really good for both consumers and for innovation.
Currently being sued for antitrust.
> But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves.
It's almost like giving two companies a stranglehold over the entire mobile market means that only certain types of games can thrive, and that by and large more serious developers will be forced to abandon mobile games entirely.
You could almost imagine that in a world where quality games weren't constantly crowded out of the ecosystem, and where developers were free to be more creative, and where serious games could sell on serious storefronts that didn't force them to advertise right next to Candy Crush, that we'd have better games and less of a race to the bottom on price and ethics.
I'm having a really hard time reconciling, "Apple is great at managing an app store", with "everything on the app store is trash."
> I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
You shouldn't be deciding your legal principles based on whether or not you personally like the people involved.
This came up with Google vs Oracle as well. I don't really like Google as a company; that doesn't mean I wanted Oracle to win. I was able to look past my feelings, look at what the overall threat was to the entire industry, and treat the law as more than a popularity contest.
I really don't care whether or not people like Epic, it's not relevant to the conversation.
The monopoly that Epic is complaining about is not a monopoly on smartphones or smartphone operating systems. It's a monopoly on selling iOS apps and processing payments for iOS apps and content.
You cannot allow a global duopoly of companies that managed to become the infrastructure for a large part of our economy to take a cut of all or most business that is done on top of that infrastructure.
Imagine we had allowed that to happen with telephone networks or roads. Whoever came first would have been able to suck the air out of the rest of the economy.
The same people claim the app store is this magically perfect service that provides infinite value for both developers and users. If that's the case no one would choose to use a 3rd party app store, so having the option would make no difference.
The reality IMO is that developers would try to flock to an app store with better terms and users would cling to the existing model.
To me, a fantastic outcome would be if Apple gets forced to allow developers to inform users they can pay for subscriptions outside the app store and to charge +30% to people that still want to use the app store. Then all the users defending Apple can put their money where their mouth is.
Then add in competing app stores that don't take a 30% cut and all of a sudden you'll have "dedicated" Apple users flocking to the new stores to save a buck.
Nobody cares about other markets, but you can't even host your own app! You are forced to give up 30% of your app revenue just to be in their walled garden. That is monopolistic in every possible way. And stop with the childish "ooh we're gonna end up like Android". Android devices are more than capable to hold their own against Apple's offerings nowadays and I haven't heard anyone complain about viruses and malware in like five years now.
And when I want to install an open source app I can do so on Android but Apple wants to tell me I can't after I spent $1k on their shiny phone. Amazing stuff, let's not lose it for something silly like user and developers having a fucking choice.
But I personally would not like having the system I bought as a phone suddenly change in function allowing side-loaded software. (Similar to how I'm not happy that, in time, the PC-controlled Oculus hardware I've owned for several years will soon be useless without an FB account.)
This is exactly the problem. Apple can and does routinely change the functioning of their phones, and if you prefer the old functionality you have no recourse, because Apple contractually forbids you from installing software of your choosing.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
I fail to see why people think this is such a problem on this forum. It’s as people think all hell and doom breaks lose if, god forbid, developers are able to distribute apps themselves.
It may be a problem to you, but for other people it's a feature. Some people have more involved threat models than you are keeping in mind. They don't want their device to be able to run arbitrary code or unsigned code. Having this feature but having a toggle to turn it off defeats the purpose.
Maybe you disagree, but HN is shockingly flippant about dismissing this extremely legitimate security concern, and comments like this are a perfect example.
Is that really so difficult for you? Why do you need to prevent me from installing other apps stores, when you can just not do that yourself.
If Apple made-good on Steve Jobs’ promise to make FaceTime an open standard and I could use it from Android devices and and PC then your argument would be stronger.
Apple put us in an unfortunate position where the strength of the iOS ecosystem means that many of us don’t have a choice in phone platform to buy into - which in turn opens us up to being exploited by their App Store practices.
Point is - I feel like I’m being dicked-over by Apple and the alternatives are just not feasible. Responses like “Just buy two phones lol” or “you still have a choice to use Android and not talk with your family at all” aren’t helpful or productive.
I’m sure the same arguments would have been made with Standard Oil when anti-trust law wasn’t on the books yet: arguably consumers and companies still had a choice to not use oil: they could use coal or natural-gas. People have a choice to drive a car or they could walk or ride a horse or take a train... hopefully you see why your argument is seen as being made in bad faith. We have a choice, yes - but it isn’t a free choice. We are being coerced into making a choice by our circumstances and Apple is taking an unreasonably unfair advantage of that.
You don’t lay any of the blame on Google’s inability you convince people that their phones are worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
How is any of that Google's fault? That's Apple entrenching their platform lock-in in a way that ultimately harms customers.
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
> You don’t lay any of the blame on Netscape's inability to convince people that their Navigator browser is worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
Google in fact was able to overtake IE on Windows so thoroughly that MS gave up and is now using Google’s engine.
Google Maps is quite popular on iOS devices.
There are dozens of other messaging clients on iPhones. Outside of the US, most people don’t even use iMessage. Now people are complaining that they can’t convince their friend circle to use alternate messaging apps.
This is again partially due to Google’s incompetence. They can’t even convince Android users to use their messaging apps.
Of course part of the reason for this is because Google put in a bunch of scary warnings when you try to install 3rd party apps, and Epic is so unhappy with these warnings making it difficult to distribute Fortnite outside of the Play Store that they decided to sue Google too.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
For me, the reason why iPhone are great are because of the hardware. FOSS alternatives to Apple's software that maintain compatibility are almost assured.
But you are actually legally incorrect. A company has “no duty to deal”.
I want to increase choices, you want to reduce them.
None of these are the main reason though.
The biggest reason you use an iPhone today is because it has Instagram on it, DoorDash on it, Amazon on it, Netflix on it, TikTok on it, and yes, even games like Fortnite on it.
And so... we get to this:
> Why can't you just leave us alone?
Because they want Apple to stop engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Without 3rd party apps, the iPhone is just a better phone. Being a general purpose computer is what makes it the behemoth it is today.
I'm actually kind of surprised Apple hasn't done this on Android yet, now that I think about it.
The console market only works if you sell the hardware under cost and then charge up the ass for services to the game developers ($50,000 was the price point for pushing updates on PS4)
PS3 didn't regain profitability until the end.
PS4 as well: https://www.quora.com/How-will-Sony-make-money-off-the-PS5-b...
Only Xbox seems to be sold at loss at the moment: https://www.thurrott.com/games/xbox/xbox-one/118357/microsof...
The current system is structured to be as profitable as possible for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo and to keep competitors out. These companies aren't good guys looking out for me and you, they are looking out for the interests of their shareholders.
If the $50k price for updates is true, that's awful. It sets up a lot of bad incentives for developers. Consumers deserve much better than that.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-pl...
I am excited for third-party Fortnite skin stores.
It is not suspicious, it is plain.
I would say the whole thing was pretty well engineered and executed.
Kudos to Epic.
Oh yeah I'm so excited at the thought of a second app store filled with "games" that have no guarantee they'll actually respect data collection, privacy, etc.
As a consumer I like that Apple keeps a firm hand on the standard of apps in the store, I have no guarantee that Epic will bother doing that at all.
Do we know how / if Apple charges SaaS companies who enable adding seats through their App Store apps? I'm thinking the likes of Slack, Trello, Zoom, Notion etc, I haven't heard that they get charged by Apple?
I'm quoting [1], but from my expirience that's true, the problem comes when you link to your website without giving the option to pay with Apple system. Slack doesn't have any direct link to add seats, I think that's how they avoid the 30%.
Why Spotify wouldn't do the same then ? I think maybe because they target a more mainstream public that will not understand that they have to go to website to pay and then go back to the app? Maybe they reckon that would be losing more than 30% without that flow, or I'm missing something.
[1]https://www.quora.com/How-does-Apple-determine-whether-a-ser...
Matt Stoller (Journalist specializing in monopoly) https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/epic-games-kicks-off-the-...
iA (App developer) https://ia.net/topics/monopolies-apple-and-epic
I'd always have the choice to install them, but I could continue to ignore them and still get the benefit of Apple's walled garden approach.
But to me (with my almost decade long iOS developer experience), the bigger problems are:
* You cannot install apps on an iPhone (even on a phone that you own) without paying Apple. Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days.
* If you are an app that exists on other platforms, and/or accepts payments on other platforms, you can't describe that or even link to it, from your iOS app. Your users need to know that the alternative options exist on their own. See the Netflix sign in screen for a nice example, but realize that 99% of apps won't get away with that, only apps the size of Netflix can.
* You can only ship apps that Apple's inconsistent review board agrees with. And of course, the rules and their inconsistent application keep changing in favor of Apple's competing apps, which of course have access to internal APIs and don't pay a 30% cut either. Spotify is a good example here, but it's worse for many smaller companies.
* And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all.
Unfortunately there are many who drink the Apple koolaid about all of this being all about security. There are legitimately good things that Apple does which enhance user security, and I welcome changes like the new IDFA policy of iOS 14, but let's not pretend that Apple does those because they affect Apple's competitors' business and strengthen Apple's (you have to now use Apple's sdk for user tracking).
But none of the things I wrote about above are about the user, and some of them are actively worse for Apple's users (eg: not being able to buy a book on the Kindle app easily).
Where did you get that information and what makes Apple Silicon different here?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116
"any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
Ok, not really true.
I guess this is a backwards-compatibility breaking change, but Apple Silicon is a new platform so there's nothing to break, all new binaries will have it from the start.
I am not sure if you can distribute ad-hoc signed apps - I think they are only signed for local use.
Just that now the linker automatically signs every binary. So that something like gatekeeper could disable it based on the signature.
That would be my non-"apple is draconian" interpretation, as I don't have an arm mac.
That is not the same as it signing "every binary", otherwise there would be no point in signing in the first place.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, personally. I think code signing is a great idea. I just don't believe this single authority approach is the way to do it. I totally understand that as you already trust apple to provide the OS, it makes sense that you can trust them to sign apps - but that shouldn't mean you cant (as a user) choose to trust other parties.
Of course, they don't actually check the apps aren't malicious - they don't even check that you are a real person when you create a dev account... But they do have a signature they can revoke if your software is exposed as malware.
They also say >enable the system to better detect code modifications.
So that part doesn't require any central authority and can be handled locally. (But I'm guessing there are more parts)
Do you have a source for this? I certainly haven't read this anywhere, but I also haven't been keeping a super close eye lately! This would both be really sad and would also essentially destroy the entire OSS community in macOS. (So I'd be very surprised if Apple actually made this change. It would also mean every numerical scientist would have to migrate off the Apple ecosystem, which would be a shame.)
"any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
The same way that we believed the original signing requirements would only be used to block specific malware, and not to enforce general policies?
There are already system-level APIs that are restricted to the Mac app store[0]. If you want to use Wireguard on Mac without going through the store, your best option is probably using the command line. That's crazy; in order to get a free VPN client with a GUI running, I'm being forced to give Apple a credit card number and an email address, and there's nothing the devs can do to get around that requirement.
[0]: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/00...
People have been saying exactly what you are saying since 2011.
This is literally what Epic just filed an injunction over. They're being blocked from Mac tools because of a dispute over payment methods, not because anyone thinks that Unreal Engine is literally malware.
https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327...
> - Access to provisioning portal for certificate generation, and provisioning profilegeneration
> [...]
> - Access to Developer ID signing certificates and Kernel Extension signing certificates
Yes, people have been saying this since 2011, and an important component of that fact is that within the past few weeks, Apple did it.
THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.
I’ve been seriously looking at this: https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/
If we want an open ecosystem, we need to support it.
iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us.
Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year.
Anyone interested?
We're a long way from a flagship class phone that you can install distros as freely as you can on a PC. I'm well aware of the Pine Phone and Librem, but they're both rather slow compared to a 2019 or 2020 smartphone.
It's a pain. This is not a solution for the average user. I can't even use Uber, for example.
I loved using lineageos but still had a back up iPhone for some stuff. Stuff was constantly breaking.
I've since gone back to using just the iPhone.
The problem is what you are calling a "flaw" is a feature to others. If you don't like that "feature", others are saying you should leave the ecosystem rather than lobby Apple to "fix" it.
>For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules.
It's acceptable collateral damage, and if those apps are truly great then someone people will (and have) switch to another platform. Just like if I get an XBox I can't play Playstation games.
IMO, if this was truly a great issue, people wouldn't choose iPhones. If you really care about being able to install software on your device, then don't buy an iPhone. It's even easier to make this decision because there is very few iPhone exclusive applications that do not have alternatives on Android. To me however, it comes across as the same lip service Linux gets where for users all these "power features" are important, but everyone just buys a macbook instead.
As for lack of sideloading being a feature - lack of features is only a feature, when those features can get in the way. The ability to opt into sideloading - as it's done on Android and Win10 - is not intrusive for those users who choose to not enable it. So, no, this can't really be sold under the guise of caring about the users. It's a policy that is in place to protect Apple's interests, and benefits no-one else.
There's a weird dichotomy that comes up in those kinds of arguments, where we simultaneously assume that people are so smart they'll know exactly what phone ecosystem they're opting into and what the consequences are, but also so stupid that they can't be taught to make informed decisions about which app stores to use.
Not to mention that a giant chunk of Apple's user retention policy is to make it as difficult and annoying to get out of their ecosystem as possible, which (imo) makes the "users would just switch if they were unhappy" argument really disingenuous. Apple is now tying credit cards to their phones. You're really going to get rid of your credit card because you're unhappy with the app selection on your phone?
That kind of user lock-in can't be separated from their efforts to force developers to use Apple payments for recurring subscriptions -- it's not just about the 30% revenue. It's also a nice way to make sure that switching from iOS to Android means literally all of your digital subscriptions break, and that it's impossible for you to cancel them or migrate them without going through Apple.
Monopoly does not mean “popular product” Apple isn’t even market leading, let alone dominant, and even if your dominant in a market you still might not have a monopoly.
Not a thing for me but I can see how those who don't aspire towards experrdom or even "well-educated amateur" would find it useful and call it such.
AFAIK mobile Safari is the primary source of vulnerabilities on iOS, zero days regarding it cost less than on other platforms on the black market (supposedly because they are easier to find/exploit) but Apple doesn't allow to replace it.
That's a serious security flaw in my opinion.
It sounds pretty ridiculous to type that... but it's the same basic argument. Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market. Every single person on this (HN) site has a competitive alternative if they don't like Apple policies. If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.
Honestly, it would not be all that bad if the community could mod Fortnite to add their own skins, like you can in many other games.
They're the majority in the US (https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...), which is relevant for US antitrust law.
> If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.
Just because two cases can be abstracted to "monopoly on their own product" does not mean they are the same. Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case.
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-... https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor https://mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/u-s-smartphon...
What percentage of the Battle Royale genre does Fortnite own?
>Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case
Microsoft had over 95% of the market and two decades later people are still arguing whether they actually had a monopoly.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not.
So Apple's percentage of global smartphones doesn't matter, what matters is:
- Apple's 2/3 share of app store revenues.
- Apple's share of users in rich, developed markets such as US, Europe and Japan, which (source: ben-evans.com) varies between ~50-70%.
It is unaffordable for app developers to skip the Apple platform, since that's where the majority of paying users are. And as a result, they should fall under anti-trust laws that protect small players.
How many game developers will skip either Sony or MS unless they are paid for exclusives?
Why can’t Google and all of the Android manufacturers convince people with money that they should buy Android phones?
A phone is the average person's primary general computing device. Controlling what software they're "allowed" to run on it is wholly unacceptable, regardless of which laws are convenient to fix that issue.
Perhaps game developers should ship their games on the Epic Store, and use Epic's resources for management, distribution, discovery, and so on, but handle all transactions themselves so that Epic doesn't get any money out of it. That sounds fair, right?
This will be relevant when Fortnite becomes a general purpose platform hosting third party applications that is integrated into people’s life.
Wechat could be a better example, and yes, if we had the equivalent of wechat we’d be asking the same questions about their relations with third party apps.
I doubt that the accountants and marketing see it that way.
If the only thing in the "Fortnite Store" is Epic's own products, that obviously isn't saying much and is incomparable to a store distributing third party software.
If the "Fortnite Store" is distributing third party software, and there is no viable alternative way to distribute that software, then it is a monopoly, because that's what a monopoly is. It's a thing with no reasonable substitutes.
The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. If there were competing app stores that could reach those customers or some other viable competing distribution method then they wouldn't have a monopoly on that market even if they still had complete control over "their app store" -- what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it.
It's the same way that Comcast has a monopoly on the network path to Comcast subscribers and uses it to collect rents from e.g. Netflix. Netflix can't reach those subscribers through any other path, there is no competition. You can't reach Comcast subscribers by peering with Verizon.
You keep saying this but it's unlikely that the courts will see it this way. The US legal system generally doesn't consider an aftermarket of a single brand's product to be a valid antitrust market unless specific exceptions are met. I've explained why in detail elsewhere. [1]
Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [2]
The court held that “the aftermarket is the relevant market for antitrust analysis only if the evidence supports an inference of monopoly power in the aftermarket that competition in the primary market appears unable to check.” [3]
When a manufacturer lacks market power in the primary market, an aftermarket restriction set forth in a purchase contract is generally safe from challenge under the antitrust laws. Numerous courts have rejected aftermarket claims based on contract provisions that exclude competition in an aftermarket. Because such restrictions are disclosed to customers at the time of purchase, customers can understand and plan for the aftermarket restriction before they are locked in. [4]
> what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it.
The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731
[2] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-...
[3] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-... (This is an excellent read for anyone curious about how aftermarkets are treated in antitrust law, btw.)
[4] https://eu-competitionlaw.com/competitionantitrust-challenge...
Because flagship Android phones comparable to iPhone are not cheap enough to switch solely due to apps. This is a textbook monopolist argument: "if you don't like me, then you can always move out!"
That is a district court case with no value as precedent.
And in that case, like most of the others regarding aftermarkets, the monopoly in the aftermarket is obtained merely by refusing to sell OEM parts (and thereby monopolizing the repair market). Apple isn't refusing to sell OEM screens and batteries -- I mean they are, but that isn't what we're talking about today -- they're using technological measures to purposefully exclude competitors for app distribution. That's a lot more brazenly anti-competitive than merely not selling parts and service independently.
It's also questionable whether you can really get away with calling the entire software market an "aftermarket" of the device market. It's like claiming that online retail is an "aftermarket" of the real estate market because the goods get shipped there. That's not exactly the same thing as the "aftermarket" for copier service, is it? It claims too much.
> https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-...
This is, similarly, predominantly an analysis of lower appellate court cases narrowing the Supreme Court's Kodak decision. The one you're quoting from is a 1st Circuit decision, whereas the case Epic filed is under the 9th Circuit.
And this is from your link, Page 6 of the FTC paper:
> 13. In the context of aftermarkets, a key question regarding product market definition is whether the aftermarket constitutes a relevant product market separate from the foremarket. The hypothetical monopolist test can answer this question—if a profit-maximizing hypothetical monopolist of an aftermarket (that is not a monopolist in the foremarket) would raise prices by at least a small but significant and non-transitory amount, then foremarket competition is not sufficient to prevent against anticompetitive behavior in the aftermarket; thus it is appropriate to analyze competition in a separate relevant market comprising the aftermarket.
If there was any doubt that this is true for the app store market, wasn't this the very thing Epic went out of their way to empirically prove? Epic is willing to charge less than 30% to distribute apps, and thereby charge lower prices to consumers. If the hypothetical monopolist in the "aftermarket" couldn't have charged more than Epic without hurting their sales in the primary market then how is Apple actually doing that? The claim that they would be making up for it by charging less for the product in the "foremarket" would require them to actually be doing so -- does Apple charge less for its phones than its competitors? (No.)
Likewise:
> Even where the original equipment market is a monopoly, however, if buyers understand that they are locked in (hence vulnerable to hold up), there will be no additional harm from hold up in the aftermarket–the monopolist cannot charge more in total than the buyer’s reservation price for the services generated by the equipment over its lifetime.
This falls apart for the app store market because it's a market like web hosting where there are customers on both sides -- the person buying "hosting" might also be selling something, but they're still a customer. So to avoid the market effects that are supposed to be constraining them, they only need to charge the fee to the developers who don't get to choose which phone their own customers have.
And then that's in fact what they do -- it's the develo...
The relevant cases are listed after the text I quoted, the quote is merely summarizing existing precedent.
> It's also questionable whether you can really get away with calling the entire software market an "aftermarket" of the device market.
I mean, it's your claim that the "iOS software distribution" market is a separate antitrust market that Apple has monopoly control over. Not the entire software market.
My point is that the courts are unlikely to see this narrow definition as a valid and separate market. If customers don't like the fact that they can only get apps from the App Store, they can simply buy a different phone that allows side-loading.
Otherwise, if we accept your premise that every company that controls the distribution of software on their own phone has an antitrust violating monopoly, then even a company with 1% smartphone marketshare would be liable, which makes no sense.
The rest of your post has to do with Apple's 30% commission and is kind of tangential to my main point. After all, even if they charged a 0% commission, according to your logic they would still "have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices ". For what it's worth I think Epic has a stronger case there.
- Use codecs the underlying mobile safari browser can support.
- The browser stores your Epic login and launches to the default Epic homepage.
- Enable the Epic browser to generically surf the web to provide multipurpose functionality to follow existing precedent set by Firefox and Chrome on iOS Appstore.
At worst Epic can default to Mobile Safari itself if Apple still blocks a specific Epic browser (i.e. duplicate functionality) and show how people can make iOS safari shortcuts.
Long live mobile web apps!
* Apple's payments API is very difficult to work with, especially compared to something like Stripe.
* Developers cannot disable their customers' subscriptions, or offer refunds. This has to be done through Apple. The leads to a poor customer service experience.
* If the customer uses their subscription through your website or moves to Android, they're still locked into the iOS subscription - making it impossible for them to upgrade/downgrade their plan.
* Customer's subscription is tied to their iTunes account. This leads to confusion if they sign into your app while signed into a different iTunes account.
I could go on. But having implemented Apple's subscription API, the frustration goes way beyond just the 30% fee (which is really my company's problem, not mine).
I was literally thinking this was like getting credit for a returned cable modem with comcast/etc
On the iPhone
settings -> click on your profile -> subscriptions.
You cannot know what your apps are doing.
You cannot know when they are running.
You cannot know what communications are taking place in the background.
"content blockers" are opt-out. When combined with the above, how can you possibly opt-out?
Apple promotes "privacy" as a marketing term, yet actively creates systems to degrade your privacy (ibeacon bluetooth beacons, deep links, preview links, advertising identifiers) and prevents systems from helping your privacy (little snitch for ios? adblockers?)
This is not true. You can still run non notarized apps by control (?) clicking the first time.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Apple changed the rules about account creation and outside payments/subscriptions in 2016(?) and they apply to every app now.
We've seen, time and time again, Apple ban apps for their "corporate moralism" reasons. Most notably, they throw a fit about nudity and reject apps over it. (Including social media apps where such content is accessible.) They also started banning "vaping related" apps, some of which are for controlling hardware, apparently. Philosophically, I have an issue with a company gatekeeping the software you run on your computing device, for any reason. It's not anyone's place to do that.
This could all be avoided with a legal mandate blocking such gatekeeping. The 30% issue is mitigated if you can install apps over the web, as well.
I was excited to learn Swift last year but this killed my enthusiasm for making iOS apps.
Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
When I read hackernews a lot, I get the impression folks think these app stores are some kind of public commons.
And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves?
Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
And then, how many bad experiences for these types of purchases (or articles about bad experiences) will customers tolerate before they stop trusting in-app or third party purchases? One? A hundred?
Or a real life analogy: every year someone drinks bleach and dies. I'd rather we didn't make bleach completely illegal.
Maybe Apple can do what the Mac does and have some prompts like "hey danger ahead".
Just to be clear, I'm just trying to understand if folks think the app store is a public commons or is it private property?
Lots of the comments on this issue imply that the store is a public commons. And I'm wondering if that's a common view.
There might be legal issues with drastically reducing the functionality of devices after they've been sold, but I would imagine they could do this for new devices going forward. I think this points out a subtlety in the arguments of most people who take Epic's side in this struggle: it appears that Apple could avoid these allegations of anticompetitive behavior by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions placed on third-party software distribution. That's a little bizarre, but it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software (think game console, GPS devices, stereo receivers, car infotainment systems, the microcontroller in every switching power supply, etc.). Presumably the response to this subtlety is that "iPhones are general-purpose computers, but game consoles, etc. aren't," but I disagree with that both in theory and in practice based on what buyers of these devices expect to be able to do with the devices.
Antitrust has always been about big companies abusing market power. These concepts are contestable, which means the law can only be enforced through expensive, time-consuming trials, but it doesn’t mean that the law is meaningless or not useful. The laws against assault and murder are also quite contestable in borderline cases of self-defence, but they are useful, and it’s easy to generate examples where the law is clearly not applicable just as with antitrust.
Are they offering to allow a replacement to enter in or effectively bricking devices (well soft brick, as they can still call and text)?
In my mind, I'm toying over how committed Apple is to the customer experience. Apple always talks about the user experience first and if they honestly believe that a free and open store is a bad experience (just for the sake of discussion accept this point), would they consider ending the app store (say for all new devices) because they'd rather give a "great" experience rather than being forced to give one they believe is substandard. Essentially protect their brand.
I don't see Google ever doing something like that. But Apple... I dunno.
The iPhone would no longer support third-party apps, and thus most iOS users will move to Android, and on Android, everyone will be familiar with installing apps from websites.
So in that world, all you need to do is develop only for Android and put up the .apk file on your website (using some sort of pre-made e-commerce software of your choice if you need to sell it), thereby getting rid of all censorship, friction, issues, rules, 30% fees, etc.
Depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that they have a right to not run any of their apps stores anymore, then sure.
But I do not agree that they should have to right to force me, by law to not install other app stores on my phone. If I bought the phone, then I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my own property, including installing other app stores that 3rd parties voluntarily offer me.
> think these app stores are some kind of public commons.
It is not about public commons. Instead, it is about physical property that I purchased, the device, that I own.
> Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers
I don't care. That is not my problem. That is not an excuse for apple or google to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property.
> What's a customers recourse
If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am not trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services.
This is an interesting answer. It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Or is it that you're concerned about apps you like not being available due to contract disputes? Could you elaborate?
Because those costs inevitably either get passed down to the consumer, or mean that there are less resources to make the game, which results in a worse experience for me, the customer.
I don't want Apple to force everyone to give them a cut, because that is real money that would either stay in my pocket otherwise, or would provide more resources to game companies.
More money that stays in developers pockets means that they are incentivized to make more games or spend more resources on them. Or it can result in more developers entering the space, because there is more money overall to get.
Apple isn't providing any value to me here, that I could not get elsewhere, if there were competing app stores. I don't want them to force everyone to give them that money.
(And no, I dont' accept the argument that Apple's app store would always be significantly better than everyone else's, so much so that they deserve a full 30%, automatically. If they end up being better, thats fine, but I still want competition, and for other app stores to be able to compete fairly)
The stunt by Epic, aside, has that ever happened to you? Has your Netflix bill ever gone down because they secured a better discounting with their cloud service providers due to their growing volume?
That's never happened to me (but maybe my experience is unusual)
But for the sake of discussion, let's explore how this might play out.
If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings (and hopefully pass it on) or take some percentage of that saving and channel into their new acquired support costs. They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?
The big developers will hopefully act responsibly and balance the savings with their new support costs.
But what about the small(er) ones? Will these 2-10 people developer shops be prepared for the support costs? What if the support costs are greater than the savings?
What's your take?
Think about the opposite situation.
Imagine that Apple charged 90% of the costs of having a game on the app store. How many game companies do you think would make games for that? My guess: probably not many.
> If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings
Also, even in this situation, with the game developer pocketing all the savings, I would much rather prefer them doing this, than Apple taking the money.
To re-iterate, even if we agree that the money would not go to the consumer, and not trickle down at all, I still want this to happen.
This is because now there is more money in the gaming industry, which means that there is now more reason for game developers to make games. So I still want that to happen. Because it means that there is more reasons for developers to make games.
That is still much better than if Apple gets the money.
> They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?
Yes, and those costs are much much cheaper than 30%. It is not even close. Paypal charges 3% costs. So that is where the prices would probably go to.
> What if the support costs are greater than the savings?
They won't be. 30% is a very large number. But even if we agree that they are, in some small percentage of cases, then those companies can feel free to continue to put their service on the Apple app store. So you can't use that argument.
If other app stores are bad, then people will just list it on the app store instead, and you can't use this argument.
I don't want to force companies to put their app on other app stores. I just want it to be an option. That way the best app store wins. Problem solved.
So, to say again, even if the game developers pocket all of the money, I still rather that happen than Apple getting a dime, by forcing people to use their app store.
I will go even further, actually, and say that even if there is zero proven benefit to consumers, by either trickle down prices, or because of more games being produced (due to game devs having more resources, by pocketing everything, and using those resources to make better/more games), I would still rather my money go to game devs, because philosophically I consider it to be their game, and they deserve the money more than Apple.
Maybe something like "turns out games aren't a great fit for the app store." then they just boot the entire games category off the app store and only allow games on apple arcade.
Its not a headache, it's basically a money grab at this point, 30% of sales of a digital-only product. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
>And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves?
>Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
There are many ways to build payment platforms without letting Apple rob 30% of your sales. For e.g. Paypal has consumer protection polices. Buyers can dispute transactions/services, etc.
Every pre-installed Apple app has a better 3rd-party alternative, it would be no different for the store.
Undoubtedly if Apple allowed other companies to handle app discovery, the experience could be one or two order of magnitudes better, for both consumers and developers.
They would blame the person that ripped them off. If I take my car to a local garage and get defrauded it would be stupid to blame the car manufacturer.
> Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
You call the bank and say "hey, I have a fraudulent charge on my credit card" and they give you your money back. There's zero liability for the user. Plus, I'd way rather ask my bank to do a chargeback against a no name scammer than against Apple, Google, Amazon, or Microsoft.
What happens if your kid gets scammed via IAPs, spends $5k, and Apple sides with the developer? What's the result of a chargeback against Apple if you're massively invested in their platform?
Online payment processing is a solved problem. I think things like Apple Pay are fantastic as a system we can opt into, but I'd much rather have the current system of credit card processors with all the regulation and consumer protection that comes along with it.
https://media.tojicode.com/q3bsp/
As long as Apple controls the app store, this will always be an issue, and it doesn't matter precisely what the % cut is. The reality is, very few people would argue that Apple "deserves" some cut of app sales for developers who choose to use the Apple App store. But it's impossible to disentangle this issue from in-app payments. If in-app payments are royalty free, then every app will become "free" with an in-app purchase to make it do anything at all, to game the system. But if Apple gets a cut of in-app purchases, there will always be this grey area of "what if I purchase a subscription using another website" or "what if I use a free app to access my paid Netflix account", and so on.
iphones will only have apps produced by apple. If any other company, say a game producer wants their game on the phone then you have to license the game to apple for 30% royalties. Apple then makes the game available on the phone. Is this still an issue legally or in terms of fairness?
Sure Apple has a bad timeline but they did what they were allowed to do and Epic Games only attack is the environment it happened in.