I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day. Of course no one will do it but I simply hate everything about these apps forcing parents to pay small fees for stupid pixels because their kids begs them to do it.
Sorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money on tiny cellphone games.
My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.
Be clear to the kids that they don't have permissions to spend money in apps, then systematically request for refund and charge back if the app doesn't refund you.
Apps have no basis to deceive children into spending money. Most of their practices are outright illegal depending on the jurisdiction (latin Europe), shouldn't have mercy on them.
There are bad developers will not pay your money back and keep their 5 bucks and only refund after a long, long process. They feed on this behavior, for each customer do not challenge those purchases they make free money.
When all the payments are forced to go through a trusted processor with correct parental controls for all apps in the platform, you guarantee that your kid will not make any uninformed purchases.
The thing about fraud is, if you do not stop it completely, it grows exponentially.
I am alright with cosmetic microtransactions, but I think "loot boxes" should be relegated to rewards for play. Microtransactions should be to buy specific items... but leave loot boxes as a way to get random ones for free through normal play.
> I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day.
What’s the alternative? I’m in love with the micro transactions model because the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or high upfront fees.
On the games I play I rarely buy anything, don’t see ads but their business is healthy and the games are fantastic and regularly updated with new content.
I casually play Asphalt 9, SimCity BuildIt and PUBG, probably have hundreds if not thousands of hours on each and spent probably less than $20 till now. If that’s not a great deal, I don’t know what is.
I also bought games like Monument Valley or Limbo and similar. While the experience is also top notch, the upfront payment feels steep and the developers don’t update the games so the play time is considerably less.
> I rarely buy anything, don’t see ads but their business is healthy
Where do you think the money comes from, then? Ultimately, your `fantastic' experience comes at the cost of innumerable singular sites of suffering from the children and addicts _who do_ buy them.
There are teams of people whose entire job is to make the IAP as addictive as possible. It's not fair to say that someone should just "be less addicted" to buying them.
Regulating the kids by banning them completely is like a nuclear bomb in a mineshaft.
It should he easier to stop children spending money on them but equally I don't mind adults spending their money on new things. A new Fortnite skin or dance etc. does have a cost to produce (I am not in favour of PTW-style microtransactions though)
I can say quite confidently that micro transactions ruined sim city build it. They slathered the game with a massive amount of grind, it really only has a minor thematic similarity to the rest of the franchise.
I played the game for a year straight, just once spent something like $5 because I wanted an item that was about to expire an I was out of resources. Never felt like I had to pay to “win”. I never played the rest of the franchise though, enjoyed this one until I felt like I am spending too much time on a game and quit.
the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or high upfront fees
My experience is exactly the opposite. IAPs encourage developers to make the default experience sufficiently broken (e.g. requiring absurd amounts of grinding) so that you'll pay to fix it.
I know the argument but it’s not my experience with these games. Especially with PUBG, the purchases are only cosmetic if you don’t count the private playing mode that I’m not into anyway.
Because these games are multiplayer, you peer with people that are also not high spenders(mostly).
In Asphalt 9, for example It’s not realistic fir me to unlock some cars by free playing but I would not say that the experience is broken, Years later I still enjoy a few races every day because they introduce new items and gaming modes almost monthly.
I see this as a huge failure in parenting - how come kids can actually spend those money? Why in the heck would you put in your credit card on a kids phone?
Heck, I never put in mine, I am perfectly fine with free apps that cover vast array of my usage. I don't game on the phone though. If my kids won't either, I can call it a small victory in parenting. If they will, either they earn the money themselves, receive gift (not from me that's for sure), or they will have to suffer subpar free-to-play variant of the game. Still a win.
I know, peer pressure and all that, but what happened to proper parenting and guiding children a bit through life?
Agreed, but it sounds pretty petty to say you surely won't gift your kids money for apps. Why not let them do what they want with your gift? Probably would end up a good lesson when they realize how much of a waste the apps are when you have limited resources.
The developers use every psychological tool known to human kind to make these kids beg for those. The way they are brain washed is ridiculous, you would understand if you watch these kids play and how addicted they get and only way to help their "life" which is the game at that point is buying. The kid will beg, scream, throw tantrums to get that thing they want. I've seen it, you can see it on youtube, there are thousands of videos showing how kids are brainwashed.
Again, I don't have a kid nor spend a single dollar on these apps. As a developer of other kinds of software I can see the dark patterns and psychological games in these apps and it is pure evil.
At least a Roblox dress likely doesn't use something near slave labor for what is ultimately disposable fashion like traditional throw away clothing production.
Parent here. I play Fortnite with my two kids almost every night. Compared to the more ubiquitous pay-to-win style games that dominate the mobile market in particular I think Fortnite's model is pretty reasonable. Nothing you buy in the game will change your performance in any way or help you win. The game is free on every platform and there are people who play a lot without ever spending. As for what you can buy, its all just bling - stuff to make you look cool. If you pay $10 upfront and then play 3-4 hours a week you can earn enough V-Bucks playing to buy the battlepass every season and one or two small extras without ever putting another dollar into it. I'm sure some kids go crazy with it but its certainly not necessary.
Of all the things about this, the fact that the Fortnite competitor PUBG is now being “featured” by Apple just ticks me off so much. Talk about being petty. Are there school-aged children running the App Store now (or the executive suite?).
I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but come on. Being featured is important, it’s a big deal and it can make a serious difference to any developer’s income and notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the top of the list because they’re in a bad mood really says something about Apple: I don’t know, maybe that they’re a bit isolated and immature about this whole thing?
To be honest Apple has to feature PUBG, because this fight with Epic is hugely damaging to their reputation with the next generation of kids who want devices.
The message that young preteens and teens are hearing is "iPhones and iPads are wack because they don't have the cool game". They don't care about the cost of v-bucks and who gets what percentage of the money. They just care that they can't play a game but their friend at school who has an Android can.
Apple has to feature PUBG because they have to show their customers that they still have cool games to play. Otherwise they run the risk of killing their iPhone gaming market just like they did the Mac gaming market. When you think desktop gaming its pretty likely that you think Windows first, because Mac has a really weak selection of games and many of the biggest titles are Windows only.
That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid happening to iOS as well.
Linux gaming is actually really solid now thanks to Lutris, DXVK, WINE, Steam, etc. Lutris especially makes it all work smoothly, and apparently it's Linux-only. Could Mac have similar gaming support if it were less hostile to OSS?
>That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid happening to iOS as well.
It took a court order to not cut off Epic's developer liscence, which affects many other game vendors too.
That doesn't sound desparate. That sounds balsy and arrogant, and considering the attitude of Epic somewhat called for. It's almost like the gaming market on iOS is a only small percentage of all the money Apple makes. We are talking about a lot of money that Epic looses to them, but the same is not true in reverse.
Apple will stick to its guns even if the whole gaming industry would boycot them. They don't seem to care, and i can understand why they don't. Mobile games is a very profitable market, but one that makes money irregardless of quality. Angry Birds will do for Apple. The assumption that exclusive titles are platform drivers for mobile phones is false.
This might be a desperate attempt at saying "hey but we do have PUBG!" but OTOH 80% of Fortnite players are on console vs PUBG has 40% of players on mobile [1].
My point being that if PUBG is much more popular that Fortnite on iOS it would only be natural that Apple would want to promote it. I have no idea if that's the case though.
The irony here is that PUBG is made with the Unreal Engine, which they're being forced by a judge not to cut off from their platform, and Epic still gets 5% of all revenue from PUBG.
They're not being forced to do anything, it's a temporary injunction, i.e. just a remedy.
What's noteworthy here is that it's not a preliminary injunction, meaning that Apple might not even have had the chance to defend themselves in court yet.
Heads up, PUBG was released under the EULA and thus the 5% but after release the publisher sued to be able to buy a buyout license. Thus no, Epic gets no new revenue from PUBG.
Thanks, good note. I'd argue half of my comment remains valid though: If Apple hadn't gotten a TRO from the judge, PUBG would be unable to get Unreal Engine updates going forwards.
do you actually need to download unreal engine from the app store to build unreal engine games on ios or do gamedevs download the unreal engine tools and sdks on a desktop and then compile their games for ios from the desktop and sign them with their own app store dev accounts and upload them to the app store
I was trying to figure this out before. As I understand it from other discussions (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), the majority of developers bundle Epic's engine with their game, so it is delivered with the game in the app store. Those would not be harmed by and Epic entity being terminated by Apple, EXCEPT that it would hurt Epic's ability to develop new versions and support the already existing Unity engine and their customers. Because this court case might drag on for months but much more likely years, the court didn't think it was ok to allow Apple to terminate the dev account for the part of Epic that makes the engine, Epic International. This news is specifically about Epic Games, the company that makes Epic games, not the engine.
It comes across as petty, certainly rubs me the wrong way to the point I'm done with Apple. But could it just be a coincidence of some sort and that we read some agency in that?
Not to whataboutism too hard, but Epic made an animated short mocking a past Apple advertisement. Further, tried to brew up a hashtag shame campaign. And finally ending with a holier than thou email over this whole ordeal.
Apple is just promoting an update for a popular game, around the time it’s going to be updated.
The App Store promotes PUBG constantly [1]. You're reading too much into this. It would be silly for Apple to promote PUBG to spite Epic because it's made with Unreal Engine.
Based on that thread, the last time they did it was in May, and the latest was yesterday. Furthermore, they’re promoting a sneak peek so they could have easily waited to promote something that isn’t even here yet. The timing makes it pretty clear that they’re just trying to beat up Epic, and it’s an immature thing for a company to do.
This kind of thing is handled at the CEO level at Epic because it is clearly part of a big strategy. This sounds to me like two very wealthy CEOs got really pissed off at each other and are going to all out war here. To me Apple's response only makes sense if you see if as keeping a promise to do literally everything possible to crush Epic in response. This seems very transactional to me, not strategic.
Love that move. EPIC is no nice guy in this fight. They put it as if they want to benefit users, but is still bottom line they are after. You wanted a fight why are you ticked off the other guy start throwing hay makers?
I have zero sympathy for Apple and how they manage iOS, but I do agree that banning Epic from the App Store is only logical.
OTOH I think it is outrageous that breaking the rules from the iOS App Store now bans you from even having an Apple dev account. Unless I'm mistaken, without an Apple dev account you can't even sign a macOS app (different from notarization).
I'm so glad I decided to not make any new projects for an Apple platform.
Super glad I cut all ties with Apple a few years back. They make great products for my parents, but they are increasingly hostile toward developers and tech savvy users.
I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store, and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And same with all of my future free software - it will never intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes their ways.
> They make great products for my parents, but they are increasingly hostile toward developers and tech savvy users.
This is the opposite of a backhanded complement. The market for your parents is orders of magnitudes greater than the market for developers and technologists.
As a tech-savvy user, I may be asked which device I recommend.
If I write OS-agnostic mobile apps for fun, and my apps can be downloaded for Android easily, but cannot be downloaded for iOS, guess which device I'll be recommending to my "parents", friends and internet strangers?
That way of thinking assumes that the people you are giving recommendations to care most about your app’s availability rather than the persons own preferences and motivations. If your audience is non tech savvy (group defined by not being a specific group, eg much broader), good chance they have a broad set of preferences unrelated to your free app availability.
This point above is more of a “save your breath” suggestion as tech savvy people would much more likely be interested in this trade off when considering a which device type to purchase.
The sad part is all the users who think that not providing the folks who own the physical instances of hardware the choice to install software from any location, is great for the end user.
This option is present in Android. And you can use it at any time. Is it often that the option is used? Absolutely not, I've never even used it myself. But I still think it's great that it's available, and, if need be, I can easily install any app I want from any source, even if Google doesn't approve of such app or such source.
I’m also unsure how you can possess the skills to build an entire app and not also posses the skills to read the “annual fee” part of the developer program cost.
Not rooting for Apple, but the pretentiousness in the “I’m not a charity” part seemed far removed from the humbleness required to be unintentionally illiterate.
I was under the impression that the fee was only annual if you wanted to continue developing. I didn't know the fee was also tied to whether or not your existing apps would be taken down. Clearly, this is confusing to other people as well: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5271418/will-my-app-stay...
You also have to buy Apple hardware to build and test their software. That would be at least an iphone and a macbook air. The wallet garden extends to developers as well.
I'm launching an app and I have no desire to buy hardware that treats me like I'm too dumb to be able to install software from whatever source I want.
So Apple will be ignored and that's gonna be a net win on sanity and time to polish the product for Android.
One: Epic Games is 40% owned by Tencent.[1] I'll reserve my opinion here an suggest others use this as a point of discussion to explore what we believe this might mean.
Two: Media attention is everything in the court of public opinion.
1. Tencent Holdings Ltd is a Chinese multinational conglomerate holding company, founded in 1998, <snip> the world's largest video game company, one of the world's most financially valuable companies, one of the world's largest social media companies, and one of the world's largest venture capital firms and investment corporations.
You bet they are blinking right about now, looking at each other. But I bet they’ve also planned for this scenario, and is getting close to the worse case.
Since fortnight stopped running on iOS, they lose all that revenue. I figured they’d hold up to the wire and then give up so they didn’t lose that revenue. Seems I was wrong.
Not sure why people are surprised or consider it giant news.
> The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store’s guidelines and policies while the case is in progress – the rules they followed over the past ten years until they created the current situation themselves. Epic refused.
Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want. No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much different than CHARGING game developers 30% of their revenue.
Also, the PC is an open platform. Game developers don't have to use Epic's or anyone else' store to distribute games on PC. With iOS you have no choice.
sure, there is a difference for the developer. anyone who is deluding themselves into thinking that Epic is fighting for the consumer here will be sorely disappointed.
Epic recently raised $1.78 billion dollars in capital. how do you think they intend to deliver a return on such a massive investment?
anyone paying attention to their moves sees this as what it is. Epic wants to be the exclusive destination to build, buy and play video games.
they're fighting Apple because they beat them to the punch. this is not some idealistic martyrdom. it's multi-billion dollar company fights multi-trillion dollar company for market share.
> PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much different than CHARGING game developers 30% of their revenue.
It definitely is - one store, Epic, offers deals publishers can't refuse to make a game exclusive to their storefront which limits a consumer's ability to use a platform of their choice to purchase a game. The other, steam, puts no limits on where you can distribute your game (unless you use assets from Valve's own games, but I digress) and has done no exclusivity deals that would force a game to only use their store. Publishers are free to use steam if they want to have 30% taken, but otherwise they can completely forego steam in their distribution.
> a recent financial report suggested that Epic paid over $10 million to get Control as an Epic Game Store exclusive on PC, and it's possible the company has done the same to snag some of the more important releases of the year.
I mean, that's an ordinary business deal. Presumably, the $10m price was chosen because it's at a point where both parties believe they're benefiting from the deal.
The colloquial definition of an "offer you can't refuse" is one that would be a bad deal for you, but that you have to accept anyway because otherwise the counterparty would do something even worse to you.
That's not what a deal that someone "can't refuse" means -- that's just a deal, a mutually beneficial exchange, one of the foundations of society. "Can't refuse" generally means a threat of out-of-band (e.g. physical) harm if the deal isn't accepted.
The Epic Store is free (as in beer) to create an account on, and there's no hardware lock-in -- Steam, the Epic Store, and other platforms like GOG Galaxy/itch.io/whatever Ubisoft has can all be run on the same computer at the same time. The situation is completely different from Apple's app store.
Apparently it has two meanings. I've only heard it in terms of implying bodily harm, and I'm also in the US. Probably a phrase to be avoided if you don't mean bodily harm because there's a high risk of misinterpretation.
>PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much different than CHARGING game developers 30% of their revenue.
The way you frame it is totally incorrect and completely misrepresents
Steam (who is obviously relevant in the PC space) doesn't "charge" developers 30% of the revenue. Steam is acting as an affiliate. Affiliate agreements work on the fact that one party will get a commission for driving sales of a particular product.
Steam drives sales of a particular product by providing the market place, they provide the payment mechanism, the hosting and update infrastructure and probably a bunch of things I am not aware of.
Also the 30/70% split for an affiliate relationship is standard across many industries. This could be Travel, Gambling, House hold items.
> Also, the PC is an open platform. Game developers don't have to use Epic's or anyone else' store to distribute games on PC. With iOS you have no choice.
You are getting wrong way around. If would be fine if the EPIC store offered the same games as Steam at a lower price (by taking a lower commission). Then that would drive competition and that would benefit the consumer.
However that isn't happening here.
They are artificially dividing an open market by making some PC games exclusive to their store. This stops competition because the two store fronts can't compete because they cannot offer the same games. In the same way that if you wanna play Halo you aren't doing it on a PlayStation.
GoG and Steam will have many of the same games sold on them. I end up buying them on the GoG store, why is that? GoG is guaranteed to be DRM free. That choice cannot exist when some games are exclusive to one store. So GoG competes with the Steam store and offers a better refund policy (you can refund for any reason and at any time) and no DRM.
Now it may benefit developers to be exclusive to the EPIC store but this will ultimately make the PC ecosystem less open for the consumer.
Now consider that Valve games like Half Life: Alyx are platform exclusive to Steam -- presumably because Valve gets ~100% of the money spent on Valve games on Steam. Is that "less open for the consumer" as well?
Them doing exclusives is on their own IP isn't really the same thing is it? I will give them a pass on it.
People have to remember perfect is the enemy of the good. Considering Steam's position in the market they don't seem to abuse their position. Anecdotally I know people that have developed indie games and they told me they are generally quite happy with Steam.
We are talking about stores acting as if they are publishers (because with a exclusivity deal that is what is really happening). Steam is a open market place for all intents and purposes.
If Epic is successful we will have every store front acting as a publisher. This won't benefit the consumer (publisher tend to interfere with the creative process) and it won't benefit the developers because those low commission rates will suddenly vanish.
I am all for free markets. But this is not what is happening here. EPIC is flush with cash from Fortnight and dominating the game engine market with UE3, UE4 and probably do the same with UE5 (they have over 25% in a very fragmented market) and they are trying to artificially divide what is an open ecosystem.
No it doesn't weaken the argument. The point is that seems to elude you is that they aren't bribing other devs by offering cash for an exclusivity deal. In the cases you highlight they bought IP outright. Also people seem to forget that Valve released a lot of their games on consoles which aren't open market places.
Anyway this is distraction from the general point I was trying to convey that store specific exclusives doesn't promote competition, it actually retards it.
If Epic had a store and just offered the same games for cheaper. I would be fine with it.
Also everyone keeps pretending that EPIC is this tiny company when nothing could be further from the truth.
> They are artificially dividing an open market by making some PC games exclusive to their store.
This sounds suspiciously like Amazon's KDP Select[1]:
Q. What does it mean to publish exclusively on Kindle?
A. When you choose to enroll your book in KDP Select, you're committing to make the digital format of that book available exclusively through KDP. During the period of exclusivity, you cannot distribute your book digitally anywhere else, including on your website, blogs, etc.
... I really don't like Amazon when it comes to the demands they make for publishing books through their platform. I am no lawyer, but the whole system reeks of wrongness. I publish a few books on KDP, but none have been enrolled in KDP Select - why should I give up Google Play, iBooks and a whole host of other distribution channels just to please the owners of the biggest distribution platform of them all?
You're really missing one part about Valve. Game developers that publish games on Steam are not allowed to set lower prices on other stores; at least on release when bulk of sales happening and most of full price sales occur.
So developer can't sell game on Steam for $60 and at the same time sell it on Epic Games Store for $50 due to lower commission. So Epic don't have any other tools to compete with Steam.
We've had decades of exclusivity deals for one console or another. Those actually prevented people from playing the games without shelling out for an extra console.
Total War: Troy is exclusive to Epic Games Store for one year before it comes to Steam. If you got the game on its release date, Epic gave it to you for free. To play it, you need one more launcher to go along with Steam, Battle.net, GOG, and various custom launchers. What is the harm being done here?
I like Steam, but I doubt that it will be good in the long term for it to be completely dominant. It needs a solid competitor.
That’s a false equivalency. A more apt comparison would be if you could only buy a game at GameStop for one year, while all the Best But shoppers weren’t able to buy the game from their preferred retail store.
You never heard complaints about physical store exclusive DLC? It was a big topic for a year or two before Gamestop decided they weren't getting their ROI and it became less common again.
Well not everyone wants to have to have ten game stores with ten custom launchers if they only have ten games installed
Also Epic may control the release in some ways. For example, Civ 6 on Epic is PC only but on Steam it’s PC & Mac. So I bought it on Epic and then realized I can’t play with my friends who are on Macs.
Why would I want an entire new game store, an app that they’ve chosen to make incompatible with one of the two major computing platforms, and yet another thing to keep updated, minimized, and logged into.
I’m all for competition but exclusivity deals are overall negative for the consumer. It’s worth $10 million to get a new game exclusively for Epic to force everyone to use a store they don’t want to install or use because they’ll end up spending $100 million on other games. It’s an effective business tactic but it’s not exactly in my interest.
Epic exclusivity deals are typically for one year.
Steam exclusivity for games like Portal 2 is forever. Of course, Portal 2 was a sequel to a game created by a studio that Valve simply bought outright.
Why should that not be more of an expectation? Sony has started putting out formerly PlayStation-exclusive first-party games on PC. Even Bloodborne may show up on Steam soon if rumors are to be believed.
It would be a good thing if Half-Life Alyx came out on other PC game stores, in exactly the same way that it would be a good thing if a game like Control came out on other PC game stores. Our expectations are socially constructed and we should question them more.
Look I think they’d sell more copies and it’d be good for everyone to have the content more widely available but it’s not always feasible to require it. A PlayStation game doesn’t just automatically work on PC and it probably takes numerous hours to get a PC game ready to submit to the Steam store. I’ve certainly wasted many hours localizing text for iOS app submissions and the like.
With so many different stores to download apps, it gets increasingly unlikely anyone is going to take the time to cross list on all of them.
If we wanted to change how this worked, I feel like we’d need to consolidate on fewer marketplaces. For example, apt-get has access to a huge variety of packages so I don’t find myself using the Ubuntu App Store or random third party marketplaces as much as I do with games.
Considering the fact that you can easily find iTunes gift cars for 10% off face value (and 15 to 20% around the holidays), I remain skeptical that anyone will be paying 30% less.
Fun fact: Brick and mortar retailers spam the checkout lane with gift cards because they do not pay face value for them.
You’re exactly right. Epic charges the same for games as Steam usually even if their cut is a bit smaller. Plus they still take a cut so the difference would be about 20% instead of 30%. For larger developers Steam only takes 20% so the difference would be around 10%
Epic charges a fee too so I’m not sure why you think the price of the game is going to change drastically to the end user. Epic doesn’t charge less for Civilization 6 than Steam does, the developer just gets a bit more of the sale.
What is your opinion on the fact that game devs aren't allowed to have a cheaper price on Epic due to Epic's much lower cut because Steam doesn't allow the devs to?
Isn't that also a net negative for the consumer? The fact that a game dev cant charge $8.20 on Epic vs $10 on Steam or else Valve will ban their game?
I wasn’t aware of a Minimum Advertised Price rule for Steam but such rules are extremely common across industries even if I agree they generally don’t help the consumer.
This is why when you go to buy an Apple laptop or a GoPro or whatever on Amazon that they can’t initially show you a price below the price allowed by the manufacturer. You’ll sometimes need to add the item to your cart to see the “discounted” price which is still allowed under Minimum Advertised Price rules. Cars and many, many other products work this way too.
Once again, not saying I’m necessarily in favor of it but it’s hardly a unique Steam policy. Brands seem to believe protecting their advertised prices helps maintain the value of their brand. For Steam, I guess they wouldn’t want to have a store full of games that cost more. Just like no one wants to pay 30% more to buy a game on iOS instead of PC.
I dont care about free games, I have more money than free time.
All I want is that games work on my platform, which is linux.
They killed rocket league, because its not worth it to support platform that is used by 0.3% of the playerbase.
Somehow they managed to do it before epic monies, but now its just too expensive or something. So fuck em.
TotalWar franchise works great in native Linux/Steam. I think I even got better performance than when I played the same (Shogun 2) in Windows on the same laptop. Kudos to CreativeAssembly for backporting all the old releases to the platform. One day all my old purchases just showed up under Linux and was installable without any fuss using the steam interface. Oh yeah, Civilization 5/6 showed up as well. You may want to take a look at what's been added recently. You might find something you like!
If something is exclusive to a platform that's free to use, who cares? It's not like xbox vs playstation where you have to shell out a few hundred dollars to play an exclusive title.
those were all EA titles, so EA had their own publisher exclusive marketplace. Tim Sweeney introduced buying out third-party publishers with exclusivity clauses.
edit: there's a good analogy in another thread -- only being able to buy a Nintendo game at GameStop and not Best Buy.
To be clear, you'd be perfectly happy if Epic bought the developers outright and made the games exclusive to the Epic store? To me, that seems like the same end result for consumers.
This is equally unpopular when it's happening to Rocket League.
At the same time, nobody really cared about Nintendo making Bayonetta 2.
I think the problem is with taking away something that was already available or announced to be coming, and people have less problems with funding new things with strings attached.
This is a preposterous claim that requires a lot of revision to be even close to true. Marketplace owners have been using their own games' exclusivity to push their platforms since Steam's introduction. Even just talking about third-party exclusives (which IMO is an arbitrary distinction — they're just as exclusive and for the same reasons), Valve paid for third-party exclusives early in Steam's history. Once they got rich enough, they started just buying companies outright when they wanted exclusivity on a game somebody was making, which is a much stronger exclusivity deal than the relatively tepid "the game comes out a few months earlier on our store" deals Epic is best known for.
Open and closed is relative, as nothing is completely open unless it’s open source. Epic game store isn’t completely open. He’s just defining his version open to suit his bottom line.
That's true, but Epic is more of a friend to open source than Apple: they donated money to both Blender and Godot Engine. Also Epic benefit from game development being more open in general even if their own engine is not open source.
If they gonna win in battle with Apple and will be allowed to have their own store then it's also make it possible to setup more of alternative stores for e.g open source software without waiting for jailbreak.
We were obligated to provide source code for the LGPL parts corresponding to official releases. We were not obligated to make it a community open source project with a live repo, or to accept code for ports to non-Apple platforms. We chose to do those things.
I do like the fact that we now have two competing compilers and llvm brought a lot of innovation, but everyone know that only reason Apple invested in these projects is to avoid GPLv3.
And yeah at the same time Apple's locked platform and Webkit-only policy saves us from Chromium monopoly over the web and helps Firefox live. So yeah world is not just abstract "good and evil" obviously.
Okay it's not the only reason, but certainly one of primary ones. All proprietary software developers had issue with GCC long before switch to GPLv3. GNU declined all attempts to make compiler IR accessible for 3rd-party software which would make proprietary extensions possible. And yeah it's the reason why LLVM take that niche.
Also GPLv3 was officially announced in 2005. It's was just matter of time before all GNU projects switch to new license version. And it was certainly.
Oh and there was plans to release GPLv3 even earlier in 2004 and it's was known that it's will include patents grant. This was obviously absolutely unacceptable for Apple:
Yeah, but Valve also doing all of this not just of goodwill, but as insurance in case Windows become full walled garden. Like it or not, but Epic working more or less the same direction.
Also Valve didnt start to use open source packaging software and haven't even made their own game engine source-available let alone open source. Yes it's nice they improving Linux graphics stack, but they also could do much more.
Like really I dont use Epic Games Store to buy anything neither I support the way they try to capture market share. But any attacks on locked down platforms is a good thing for FOSS.
Pretty much the same sentiment in regards to Epic - on PC it's yet another store to install & there have been some weird practices in making games exclusive, etc.
But in their attacks on Walled Garden - 100% behind them for that.
That seems meaningfully different. The openness here is you own a piece of hardware, another company wants to sell you software to run on your hardware; can that two-party interaction complete without an adversarial third party being involved?
The answer to that question on iOS is a "strong no", on Android it's a "yes, but". On PC that answer is yes regardless if the actions of Epic Store.
Independent of the Epic Vs Apple debate, I’m merely stating that it’s somewhat hypocritical to claim someone is ideologically open while at the same time they take actions to lock down purchases to the Epic platform only.
I don't really understand the hypocrisy though. It seems consistent to suggest people should be able to run the software they choose on the hardware they own, without also forcing every store to sell every product.
Put another way, in real life any legal product should be feasible to sell/buy as long as there's corresponding supply/demand to make it work. No one should force Target to sell things they don't want to sell, but it shouldn't be allowed for Target to use some leverage to block any other stores from opening in driving distance of your house.
> people familiar with Tim Sweeny’s life and ideology know that it is an actual important issues to him that platforms be open.
I get that, but I admit to finding it hard to square with his statements[1] that he is fine with game consoles not being open. Seems a strange dichotomy.
I would presume so as well. If Apple loses their case, I imagine we will see big changes in many platforms. I would also posit... much higher prices for hardware[1] to make up for the "income gap" too, presumably.
[1]: hard to image game consoles being sold at a loss if they couldn't make it up in fees on the other side.
hmm. I presumed they were still initially sold at a slight loss until economies of scale made them per-unit profitable in the middle of the sales curve.
If that isn't the case, then it makes Sweeny's statement above seem even stranger.
Tim Sweeney may be a wonderful man who loves open platforms, apple pie, and kittens, but:
- Android is clearly more open than iOS, but Epic is also suing Google. So is this really about sideloading? From that suit, it sure doesn't sound like it.
- When you do sideload Fortnite on your Android device, from what I understand, you can't actually sideload Fortnite directly. Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games Store!
It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store. And while I'm not much of a gamer, the stories I recall about Epic's store in the press... well, we'll just say they didn't have a "so ideals! much open!" vibe to them.
I think there's a lot of valid criticisms to be made about both the "app console" model that Apple is steadfastly pushing and the specific ways in which they're running the App Store, but I am skeptical that Epic is the general this particular battle needs.
The reality of the legal system is that all small companies would just get worn out and forced to settle against Apple, regardless of the justice of their complaint.
No company smaller than Epic could afford to file such a case. I wonder whether any company could become large enough without having some way for people to argue that "it is not the general this particular battle needs".
Yes, that would be possible. However, it is difficult to get multiple parties to cooperate and coordinate on an expensive for a long time. It requires a high degree of trust, or some form of legal instrument. Trust isn't very much around these days, maybe some clever legal instrument could have done it?
Theoretical objections of the sort "this could have been done some other way" are always rather strange, because they tend to ignore the actual fact that it has not been done some other way.
Sure, Epic's size is absolutely going to be helpful here. But there are other larger companies that could probably make better cases against Apple if they chose to: Amazon and Microsoft come to mind immediately, with Facebook a possibility given the events of just the last couple of days.
I'm not saying Epic is a bad poster child for this case because Epic is a sleazy company (although from all accounts they kind of are); I'm saying they're a bad poster child because their battle is running up a steeper grade.
Are they arguing that Apple's policies make it impossible for them to split money with authors at the same rate on ebooks? No. How about the policies making it impossible for them to give 100% of event ticket sales to their users and impossible for them to even tell users they'll make less money when people buy tickets on iOS? Nope. Maybe they make it impossible for them to put a client for a streaming game service, period, full-stop, even if Apple got a cut of the money? Negatory.
What does Apple's policies make it impossible for Epic to do, then? Get a higher cut of the revenue from Fortnite's game currency when it's bought on iOS. That's what got their developer account terminated. This is the stand they're taking, the flag they have planted, the hill they are ready to die on: that 70% gross profit on zero marginal cost virtual tchotchkes isn't enough.[1]
Maybe this case will be successful, but my suspicion is that if Apple changes their position, it's going to be either due to regulatory pressure or the ever-increasing weight of the rolling PR disaster they're getting themselves into.
[1] Edited to add: As I wrote, I think it's ultimately about them wanting Apple to be forced to allow the Epic Games Store to be installed on iOS through the Apple App Store, but the case they're bringing is still about Fortnite.
I agree with most of your points. The one question I'd like to return, however, in response to your 70% question is this: does apple deserve 30% of all developer income? That seems steep. I think the 70 % argument is a bit of a red herring. If you think that virtually cost free products should cost less, that's a different argument. But once the price is set, why should get apple nearly a third of it? If anything, lower cuts could result in lower overall prices.
30% sounds steep, I agree. But it's also industry standard. See: Google Play Store, Microsoft Store, Steam, Samsung Galaxy Store, Amazon App Store, etc.
Well, clearly it’s profitable enough because companies bend over backwards to launch on iOS.
And Apple doesn’t “deserve” anything anymore than any company deserve anything. Apple built the iOS and iPhone platform, so they can charge based on that.
> ...lower cuts could result in lower prices
I’m not confident that if Apple stopped taking a cut that companies would lower prices.
Sure there is. You can play the game on PC, Xbox, Switch, Android, etc.
If you want users to see the app you also have to use the iOS system on iPhone. You have to rely on Apple to build GPUs to process your game effectively. Why is the App Store treated so specially?
Imagine if Microsoft would charge for every application that you buy and install? People would shout and scream about monopoly.
If you want to charge people to use your platform there are other methods, e.g. developer licenses.
Your initial comment doesn't change my point, just moves the goal post. If I want to deliver no IPhones, I'm stuck with the system. And you can make the same argument for the Play Store.
I don't think PC/XBox quite fit in the same ball-park. The engagement model is very different on those compared to mobile devices. Which is why video games still cost 60$ but most people won't pay more than a couple of dollars for an app.
I don't think that's the real disagreement we're having though. I think the misalignment is on whether 30% fees are acceptable or not.
Fees were high before the App Store. Verizon VCast (or what ever they were calling it) was taking 70 to 80%. In all this time the percentage has not changed, While you dismiss the console market Apple pours just as much money into maintaining it's iOS ecosystem as any of the console makers.
That's the (literally) billion dollar question, right? Just with a bunch of other questions embedded in it: even if a 30% cut was okay in 2007, is it still in 2020? Aren't there a whole lot of different kinds of in-app purchases? What about subscriptions? Even if you still buy Apple's argument that the App Store isn't just a payment processor and should get more of a cut because of that, aren't there clear cases of in-app purchases where they literally are just a payment processor? I'm skeptical of the strength of Epic's particular case, but I definitely don't want to come across like I think Apple has been showering themselves in glory here. :)
Fair enough. Some companies do have a stronger case. MS and Amazon would however get pilloried here due to... other issues. Not many candidates around (unless some rich entity were to support a company's legal case from the shadows? These things do happen).
My suspicion is that Microsoft and Amazon aren't interested in charging in here because they're much more in "frenemy" positions with Apple; Amazon used to be fairly antagonistic toward the Big Fruit, but they've been more amenable to having their various services work together gracefully over the last few years, and Microsoft has ended up being pretty enthusiastic about Office on iOS. So they probably just figure that it's not worth going to war over.
Valve was introducing a new kind of an experience with their store, because there were no digital stores for games before that (that were actually used; because no doubt someone in the comments will point out to some obscure digital game store that existed at that time, but no one has heard of or used).
Valve was not fighting an existing store using "stores are bad" as an argument, only to introduce another store. Which is exactly what Epic is doing here.
Epic has been very clear from the beginning that they would like to viably run a store on the major mobile hardware, they are not claiming that stores are bad in general.
Stardock comes to mind as the Obscure Store That We Probably Haven't Heard Of. But unlike Stardock, Steam was also a DRM platform, the first to implement Carmack's observation ("The Internet is the ultimate dongle.")
In retrospect, it seems to have worked out pretty well for the company and its customers. Gabe Newell has proven to be a more benevolent dictator than his counterparts at Apple and Microsoft.
> Valve was not fighting an existing store using "stores are bad" as an argument, only to introduce another store. Which is exactly what Epic is doing here.
> Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games Store!
There are many levels to compete with Apple on, since they have decided to entrench themselves on every level. Epic is not competing with Apple on an Apple basis, where Apple doesn't want to allow a specific type of app (e.g. a browser with a different engine), they are competing with the App Store (which is how Apple ensures their App level advantage, and that you can't ship your own browser engine).
> It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store.
Whether from those stores or not, they want it to have a level playing field on the device. Apple doesn't allow that through not allowing the store on the device at all. Google restricts it by pushing a lot of the phone functionality through the Play store now.
Amazon has a store for Android too. Interesting how Google split a bunch of essential services away from the OS and into the Play services which are updated and handled through the Play store when that happened.
It makes perfect sense for Epic to go after both Google and Apple. Both restrict alternative marketplaces on their devices through anti-competitive behavior, even if their methods are entirely different.
> which is how Apple ensures their App level advantage, and that you can't ship your own browser engine.
To be clear, you can't ship your own JIT, including a Javascript runtime, because Apple does not give TestFlight or App Store distributed apps the ability to mark memory pages executable.
iOS supports two different app platforms, native apps via the App Store and HTML/Javascript/WebAssembly via Safari. One reason Safari exploits work is that the sandboxing and entitlements for Safari (and the WebKit/JavaScriptCore processes) are different from any other app.
A JavaScript runtime doesn't require a JIT to work, it just makes it a lot faster. That alone wouldn't keep alternative browsers from being in the store, there are plenty of reasons to want a different browser even if JavaScript runs slower on it.
Last I heard you couldn't ship any interpreted language on iOS, and this was the big reason given why you can't have your own browser (and many other types of apps that could benefit from some scripting interface).
But that's just one example anyway, and somewhat besides the point. I have no problem with Apple running their App Store and restricting what apps are allowed on it. I do have a problem with the App Store being the only trusted source for installing software and managing updates. It's one more link in the chain that makes any real competition on in the iPhone ecosystem beholden entirely to Apple's wishes.
Two week’s ago’s The Verge coverture was pretty thorough and interesting.
Also Epic’s filled surprisingly readable lawsuits, covering your points and more.
> from that suit
Google’s lawsuit is a different one, with specific arguments. It includes for instance Google blocking makers from directly pre-installing Fortnite on devices, which would be bypassing the Store altogether.
> Epic Game Store
Not related to the lawsuits, but an issue with straight side-loading was how to auto-update the game itself (not just the content). For that you need a mechanism, I’d expect the Epic Store to be it.
Verge was a fluff piece for Epic. They go on to paint how the monolithic Apple is bad and throwing out Apple's dirty laundry (which is fine) but poor Tim Sweeney is just fighting for justice. Not mentioning his dealings with Silicon Knights, other engine developers and Valve.
Well, they spent years discussing app store policies, antitrust, ecosystem management, the impact of the biggest players (amazon, facebook etc.) in general.
It seems in brand to care more about the legal argument and its ramifications for Apple than bickering if Epic is being “unsincere”.
Well, I think not having a sole official gatekeeper is good for consumers on both platforms -- I'm mostly agnostic about the mechanism for getting there. I'm not convinced requiring Apple and Google to host other people's app stores in their app stores is actually a good idea, if only because I'm skeptical that a government-imposed regulatory mechanism for that wouldn't have unforeseen and unintended consequences.
Even so, I actually think it would be good for Apple if they stopped insisting on being the exclusive funnel for all iOS applications, too. Yes, it would mean a certain amount of lost services revenue, but in addition to avoiding PR fiascos and regulatory interventions, it takes a certain amount of pressure off their reviewers -- and might let some really interesting niche applications bloom.
That's what WeChat is already. It's an entire ecosystem with its own mini-apps, payments and community. Many users in China only use WeChat as the OS on top of iOS.
Apple is still trying to deal with that and doesn't really have a solution, and it only adds to the numerous inconsistent practices with the App Store.
The Android suit has different claims in it than the iOS suit. One of the issues with Android is the allegation that Google killed deals Epic was trying to make with Android hardware manufacturers (by voicing objections to the manufacturers, who rely on Google) to get the Epic Store app preinstalled on some Android devices.
> - Android is clearly more open than iOS, but Epic is also suing Google. So is this really about sideloading? From that suit, it sure doesn't sound like it.
Google is equally as responsible for anticompetitive behavior with their exclusive agreements with OEMs, and the fact that they've limited Android in such a way that third party app stores will never have feature parity with the Play Store.
If you distribute an app outside of the Play Store, there is no way to automatically upgrade it, upgrade or install it in the background or include in a batch of updates.
> to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store
That is what he asked for in his email to Apple that is part of the court filings. Epic Game Store on iOS with full OS level access without Apple's approval to anything they release. Also 0% fees to Apple for IAP.
I feel like his standards for openness are always up to where Epic's business model is a best fit. I've never heard him suggest something like letting me run my own Fortnite server or something of the sort.
That said, you're right that he's consistent with these views, especially how he was against UWP during its heyday. [1]
He was very vocal years back when Microsoft was trying to pull off with UWP - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-04-tim-sweene... - That is too much to go in to here, but I would recommend reading about it if you are concerned about being able to do things like load the software you want on to Windows.
Tim Sweeney is thinking years ahead of most other people. In the case of Google and Apple, I suspect what he is actually concerned about is these two companies have control over a VR/AR/XR "metaverse" platform. There are hours of audio and transcripts about him talking about this as well.
>> The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
An upvote didn’t seem like enough, that is a devastatingly accurate appraisal IMO
Highly unlikely, the iPhone is very common and a major status symbol in China.
People making up the government are not gonna ban their phones (or their son's and daughter's iPhones, considering the 70 year old politicians might not be strong users of smartphone themselves).
They might if Apple is forced to ban WeChat and other Chinese apps from the App Store worldwide (which is why Tencent/CCP is having all these proxy wars targeting Apple, with the sole purpose of making it possible to side-load apps so that Trump’s executive orders will hurt Tencent/Bytedance (and future Chinese companies) a lot less). The timing of 40% Tencent-owned Epic Games’ PR lawsuit is no coincidence.
China is acutely aware that banning the iPhone is likely to send Apple into meltdown and by extension the US stock market and presidency. If they perceive that to be in their political interests then they will do it, otherwise they won't.
Perhaps, but that is nothing new, now is it? I'm not sure why this case would be special... it's definitely not the scale, numbers or competition, because those are practically the same on plenty of other (non-IT) inter-corporate schemes. Just because you don't hear about them as much doesn't mean they aren't bigger or less relevant.
It's possible Apple would then proactively reach out to the largest developers to make similar deals, but the risk is pretty low to Apple if it takes a company willing to launch a multi-year lawsuit costing millions and millions of dollars; many companies, even large ones, don't have that cheddar.
People keep making this argument regarding the App Store but that’s not how monopolies are defined. Apple might have strict control over their walled garden but their walled garden itself isn’t the only walled garden. As such, people can buy different handsets running different operating systems and thus use a different repository on them. The fact that Apple don’t allow other repos on iOS doesn’t make it a monopoly in the legal sense because that would be like walking into a high street supermarket and demanding they stock a competitors own brand. If, however, that happened to be the only (or within a slender margin of that) supermarket chain in the country and they still refused to work with a specific supplier who makes a competing product, then there might be grounds to file for antitrust.
But Epic did start an antitrust case, and so far a judge has found that “serious questions do exist” and granted a temporary restraining order. That wouldn’t have happened if Epic was as obviously wrong about the monopoly question as you say. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...
You’ve cherry picked a sentence there but the full paragraph actually has a less optimistic tone:
> Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist.
So no, a judge hasn’t suggested there is a winnable antitrust case here but he has acknowledged there are serious questions regarding unfair competition.
You’re right, the judge has not ruled that Epic is likely to win the lawsuit in the end, given that the case only just started. But you claimed that iOS was clearly not a legal monopoly, when Epic is suing to establish this point and a federal judge has entertained the argument and made orders based on it.
That’s not what the document actually says though. It says Epic games has filed a case with 10 claims, some of which are categorised as antitrust but none of which actually state the term “monopoly” (remember antitrust rules doesn’t just apply to monopolies). And again, it’s worth remembering that document demonstrates that even those antitrust claims weren’t well received by the judge.
Unless you can find another court document that does specifically mention the individual claims and states the word “monopoly”? The only references I can find is tabloid-level journalism covering the story (ie using vague summaries with common language rather than legal jargon accurately). If you can I’ll happily accept that the “monopoly” point is at least currently under legal dispute. But I can’t find any evidence to support that claim.
You can find this in Epic's filing. As you point out, Epic's federal antitrust claims were not as well received as their claims based on California law at the temporary restraining order stage, but they have not been finally resolved. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327...
> Apple conditions app developers’ access to app distribution through the App Store on their agreement to use Apple’s IAP to process all their customers’ in-app purchases of in-app content ... Epic is likely to prove that this conduct is: (a) tying per se; (b) an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason; (c) unlawful maintenance of a monopoly under Section 2; and (d) a denial of access to an essential facility under Section 2.
The current situation is called a duopoly. There are 2 walled gardens with approximately 50-50% revenue share in the developed world.
One makes it almost impossible to distribute your own app on these, the other makes it just very hard.
Both should be broken up, it's a bleak distopia that 2 companies headquartered a few miles from eachother decide who can publish software on mobile devices.
Indeed but that wasn’t the point I was making. I was saying those who argue the App Store as a monopoly (ie because it’s the only repository on iOS) miss the point of what a monopoly legally means.
iPhone user here. I did not opt into a walled garden for the benefits. I am in this walled garden because I happened to buy an iPhone 10 yeas ago and now I'm locked in.
It's not even legal departments having a fight, it's Tim Sweeney tilting at windmills
I 100% believe that 3rd party app stores is a hill Apple is willing to die on. I would guess they're more likely to get rid of "apps" entirely than open up their ecosystem.
The iPhone had PWAs (under a different name) before it had the App Store though.
I'd wager most App Store apps on the iPhone could be ported-over to PWA and retain 90% of their functionality - and people would still buy the iPhone.
Looking at my Settings > Screen Time history for the past week, these are the apps I use the most (in no particular order) and how I feel they would work as a PWA:
1. Microsoft iOS Remote Desktop Client: this could be a PWA with a WebSocket+<canvas>-based interaction surface.
2. Twitter: there's nothing I use in the iOS native app that can't be done in their web-app.
3. Google Maps: I think I'd be okay if I had to use the built-in Apple Maps instead.
4. Telegram / WhatsApp / Slack etc: Apps like these can't be used offline anyway, so being PWAs web-apps is also fine. As Slack is an Electron App (on Windows at least) then porting it over to a PWA is straightforward.
5. Authy / Google Authenticator / Azure Authenticator: I'll admit this is one that can't be done properly as a PWA right now because there's no way to reliably and securely persist client-side secrets.
6. Star Walk: this is one that can't be PWA: while the 3D world can be rendered in a WebGL <canvas>, it needs a large offline data cache and PWAs can only store 50MB presently (and that's 50MB as text, not binary data).
Most of the other apps I use are Apple's own or built-in to the device (iWork, Notes, Camera, iMessage, Mail, etc).
As for games: I stopped buying and installing iOS games on my phone and iPad a few years ago because there's no way to reliably download and "keep" games and apps you've bought indefinitely (e.g. as IPA files). Once a publisher removes an app or game from the App Store and you've removed it from your phone then you're SOL - you will get a refund if you contact iTunes Customer Support, but I view games as art - and the idea for a games publisher to unilaterally prevent me from accessing content I've paid for is horrible and reeks of Orwell's Memory Hole.
(Besides games-as-art that I've bought... and lost, the only other types of games I see in the stores are crass freemium bollocks - and I won't let myself get hooked on that business model).
(I think the last game I ever got from the App Store was "Rainbrow" ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/rainbrow/id1312458558 ) - which was an experimental game using the then-new iPhone X's face detection camera where you move a character on-screen using your eyebrows - that was almost 3 years ago).
WebView support and PWA support largely both depend on the same set of functionality (disregarding Cordova/PhoneGap).
If Apple decides to arbitrarily disable some functionality in PWAs but not in-app WebViews then they're going to have a hard-time defending that, as all new web-standards specifications are built around privacy in-mind (as that seems to be Apple's overriding reason for not implementing some web-standard specification that benefits PWAs).
Maybe. We're talking about the same company that only allows their software to run on their own hardware. It looks like having full control of the entire user experience is a sacred rule that they must never break.
Currently, Epic’s existing users on iOS are able to make in-app purchases without paying Apple’s 30% fee, which is literally saving them an expense. They are better off than before. Epic being blocked from issuing updates may eventually make them worse off (and it makes prospective new users worse off).
When preparing for a battle like this that's basic optics. Get the users on your side. But don't be fooled for a minute, in the end this is simply Epic not liking to give Apple a cut of what they consider their income. What surprises me is how easily people are fooled about this.
That's not true at all. This whole thing started when Epic released a direct pay feature in their iOS app that gave a 30% discount for direct pay straight to the users. You can argue whatever you like about the big corps legal departments, but it's inarguable that users using the direct pay feature are paying less right now.
So can they just make anything bought through iOS cost 30% more, but people can buy it from the website (not through iOS) without the Apple markup? I'd think people would quickly learn to buy from the lower cost option.
> The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support companies when their policy advances my interests.
But do they? Or is that just a facade to influence public opinion. Don't forget that all large companies like to personify when it suits them, but are just legal entities with the upsides or persons but none of the downsides or actual accountability. That goes for Apple, Google, Epic and all the other big ones all the same. It's also good to remember that it's not "all the people that work at the company", but mostly a bunch of legal people, and a small blip on the calendar of the CEO.
I know it's very fashionable on Twitter to say the word "post-capitalism," but how is Epic in any way operating in a post-capitalist environment? They face heavy, almost capitalist-ideal levels of competition in every market where they compete.
> No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
A valid opinion is that those rules are illegal under current federal statue. Another one is that although they currently aren't, they should be.
> Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
It's a surprise because typically these departments have a much larger incentive to settle, and not to create new case law. It's giant news because of the potential impact to many individuals and to the industry as a whole.
> Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
That's not right. Civil tort suits are for any citizens to seek justice for themselves.
The problem is there is no alternative to the App Store on iPhones. Epic Games couldn't open their own Epic Games App Store and sell their games there because Apple has a complete control over how apps can be used and sold on iPhones.
There doesn’t need to be an alternative App Store in iOS. There just need to be alternatives to iOS.
This whole “Apple have a monopoly inside their own product” is an absurd line of questioning when their product has anything but a monopoly. This argument is akin to saying that Disney has a monopoly on hotdog sales inside Disneyland and should be forced to allow competitors to open hotdog stands inside Disneyland.
MSFT had a monopoly outside of their own product. This is my point. Windows had essentially 100% market share, whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.
> whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.
I dont think that is the point, Apple has 100% market share on its devices and its using its dominant position in that market to make that market anticompetitive (as per Epic)
Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs
> I dont think that is the point, Apple has 100% market share on its devices and its using its dominant position in that market to make that market anticompetitive (as per Epic)
No, it's exactly the point and was the catalyst for my comment. Apple sells a product. If you don't like it, buy something else. The only time that doesn't hold up is when there are not any practical alternatives (a la Windows) and thus the product (perhaps) satisfies the conditions for a monopoly.
> Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs
> MSFT had a monopoly outside of their own product. This is my point. Windows had essentially 100% market share, whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.
I am not renting my phone from Apple, I own it. So when I am buying an instance of Disneyland, being able to install my own hotdog stands is a perfectly reasonable expectation.
You don't see the real problem: the device that you buy (paying a lot of money in case of an iPhone) is not really yours. You can install the apps that Apple approves. To me that is unacceptable and should be made illegal. When the user buys a phone he expect it to be able to use it with all the software that he wants, and not to be limited of what Apple approves. If not let's write it with a big red font on the box and see how many people buy iPhones anymore...
The problem is not the fee that the App Store imposes to you. The problem is that you don't have an alternative, either you accept the fee that Apple imposes to you or iPhone users have no way to use your software (beside jailbreak). And since cutting out iPhone users is unacceptable for all companies you either have to accept the Apple policy or respond to thusands of angry customers that asks why the app is only available for Android or the iPhone version of the app has not all the feature of the Android one (since the final user usually don't know that there are these restriction in place).
On Android if you don't agree with the Google Play policy you can simply let the user download the apk from your website and install it manually on your phone. Granted, you loose the visibility that you have on the Play Store and you have to implement updates and push notifications manually without relying on the Play Service.
Or you can choose of distribuiting your software trough an alternative App Store, that the user can install on its phone like any other application.
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a case to the European Union, which seems to have a knack for pursuing this kind of thing. A ruling over there wouldn't directly impact the rest of the world, but it could get the ball rolling.
Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of this whole issue to try to rally customers to their cause. For that, I have no sympathy. Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. And it's not by Apple.
I agree that the App store cut is too high. But this is not the way to go about things.
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict.
No, I don't believe they could. The courts in common law jurisdictions generally don't rule on speculative harm, they require an active controversy to rule on.
Under American law there has to be an actual harm (meaning alleged harm). Speculative lawsuits where you ask the courts to rule on something ahead of times is not allowed. It's just not how this country views its court system. The courts are for resolving specific conflicts that have occurred -- with factual histories playing key roles in determining which precedents may apply.
The larger topic of which this is a part is something called "standing." Lack of standing is quite a common reason for a court to deny hearing a case. Not only does there have to be a harm, the party suing has to be the party that suffered the harm. So you also cannot sue on behalf of others.
This is the reason for the initial actions Epic took. Tim Sweeney has been chomping at the bit for this sort of suit for years. But they needed a harm to use as the locus for a suit. There has certainly been a big PR campaign surrounding it to try to sway public opinion to Epic's side, but the action itself was necessary.
Epic already had standing based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected, they did not need to do anything else. The rest was for media attention.
>Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts
Probably not. Part of the reason Apple has prevailed in the past is the lack of direct consumer arm from their actions. By offering the discounted rate it's no longer disputable that Apple's actions harm the consumer.
Without taking this action and being removed from the App Store, Epic would not have had standing[0] to sue Apple. Their lawsuit would have likely just been thrown out.
Just because Epic stands to make an extra buck or two doesn't mean that their incentives are not aligned with small developers and consumers in this particular moment.
They are not. You cannot assume App Store service if all the income I meant all go to the developer only. If they fight for a lower cut may be. But 0! No.
I don't think you understood what apple does. apple is forbidding Epic Games to offer "discount" outside apple platform. the price must be equal on all points of sale.
What I don't get is: they pushed a noncompliant Fortnite update, and Apple took it down. So aren't they, in fact, not currently in violation? Since Fortnite is not on the store?
Is it not a valid response to Apple finding a violation to just say: "OK, then we just won't try to put it back up"?
I'm tired of these comments stating that the headline should not be surprising. Can you just accept that not everyone's life is fixated on the subject at hand, and that this still constitutes "news" for them?
They are asking for the courts to curtail Apple's absolute power over how applications can be installed on an operating system designed for general computing.
That would be a game changer for the entire developer ecosystem.
Whether that's good or bad is another debate, but the industry-shifting impact it could have is undeniable.
This kind of thing didn't exist before because it was impossible to make people follow the rules, and it's pretty costly to maintain, given that Apple has to vet all the software, host all the content, and do that across hundreds of jurisdictions with various local rules.
Before Apple there was no way any of this could happen, Google followed suit only because it looked so profitable, and they could afford to bite the losses for as long as it took to prop up their smartphone.
So, yeah, it would shake the industry to the core, just not the way most of the people begging for it think it would.
It is not an abuse of power when you created a phone many years ago, and when it was way less popular you told everyone beforehand that it will be impossible on install random software, only though store.
It is called a built-in feature and iPhones were designed with it from the very start.
The first sold version of the iPhone had no app store and only allowed web apps to be used. Without Apple having any say over what you could install or not.
> on an operating system designed for general computing
Apple could easily make the case that the platform was never designed for general computing. It was never an open platform, and what Epic is asking is for the government to 'compel speech' from Apple in the form of changes to their product in order to make it one.
> If you steal an candy bar, the government can "compel speech" in the form of forcing you to return the stolen property.
This is a great example of a thing that is not remotely 'compelled speech.' Here's the wiki article on the topic[1]. There's a pretty high bar for the government to create exceptions to the First Amendment.
A better example of compelled speech is the FBI trying to require Apple to write software that would give police a backdoor into any iPhone user's phone[2].
Now that you can play Fortnight on iOS and on the console is it fair that Apple can force Epic to a sell vbucks through its App Store because the game exists on iOS?
I'm stepping out on a limb and saying Apple is going to end up settling with Epic so they don't have to host competing App Stores.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
Really? That's so strange. I swear I thought I could buy XBox games from other stores like Amazon, Target, and Walmart if Microsoft were to kick them out of their store. I can even buy used games on CraigsList.
> There are no fees to apply to ID@Xbox, to submit a game to certification, publish, or update your games. There is a very modest one-time cost associated with development for the Universal Windows Platform.
With severe limitations, you have to use all of the Xbox Live features including having multiplayer.
You still need to pay for ESRB ratings and other things.
The SDKs that are available for this program are also heavily limited it’s basically only for UWP compatible apps, and while they didn’t put it yet it looks like there will be further limitations down the line including ensuring full cross platform compatibility including with IOS and Android.
So yes if you build a game using their more limited SDK and implement all Xbox Live features they won’t take a fee other than dev account fees.
And we aren’t talking about indie devs we’re talking about fucking Epic Games.
Around the time that program was introduced, Microsoft was promising to eventually level the two. I am certain DirectX is fully supported. Not sure about access to all memory though.
So your “source” is a HN post with no citation? You can simply compare prices on the NYT’s website and compare them to the iOS app price to find out that this isn’t true either.
Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.
Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.
Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.
How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
To clarify, these companies are certainly not absolved of doing the same exact thing, but the current news isn't about them, it's about Apple, and they're going to make good use of that
If you’re claiming that Spotify would get all the benefit of a break in the fee, you’re implicitly claiming that it bears all the economic burden of the fee (ie. it doesn’t pass on the fee to users). Spotify currently charges $13 to sign up in iOS and $10 to sign up on the web. This is strong evidence that Spotify is currently passing through the fee to users. It seems much more likely that Spotify would give iOS users a price break if the fee was cut. Music streaming is a competitive market, so they don’t have much choice if everyone gets the same break.
Especially when Apple Music is $10 per month, Spotify needs to more or less match that price. The problem is if Apple takes 30% and Spotify pays out 70% (old info, maybe this has changed) to labels, Spotify is left with $0. It drops to 15% after the first year, but that's still not good compared to the 3% major credit card processors charge.
Regulators won’t see it like that because you didn’t factor in opportunity cost.
If Apple takes one of Spotify’s customers then not only do they lose out on the 30% but they’ve just taken on the burden of providing the actual service to the customer. So Apple not only has to make a profit but make more profit than the 30% would have gotten them. And music streaming is a competitive business.
Do you never think how Kroger brand products don’t run into the same issue?
> Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.
And yet Epic has beef with Apple. So Microsoft must managed their relationship better than Apple has done to make Epic satisfied enough to not pull a stunt like they have with Apple.
I'm actually happy Apple didn't make a small concession.
I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
I share a different view on this. I want Apple to have as much control over as they can to keep my device safe. Obviously, this is an unpopular opinion on HN - part of me wants it super hackable and open source (my hacker self), but my average joe self wants is as tied down, closed doors as possible to avoid sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, and a whole bunch of "soft metrics" about my device to finger print me and then auction it off in a giant data auctioning event - an evil corporation buys my data in 3 milliseconds and off it goes.
Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc).
I love Apple and I love that they are willing to stand up for riffraff that's trying to invade my personal space (consider iPhone literally as the entire life's worth of information vault) by masquerading as a crusader of light and openness.
I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
I also think that 30% share is too low. Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out.
And only high quality apps will make it through the App store.
>I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Well, they have Fortnite to gain...
But seriously, I've lost count of the number of apps I've enjoyed on Androids that were either unavailable or stunted on iOS. Recommending even basic apps like Google Photos to family comes with a long list of caveats like, "oh yeah, it uploads your photos automatically... as long as you open the app manually to do it". It's icing on the cake that they're also taking such a hard stance against game streaming right now, which is IMO going to be a huge market going forward that a lot of people are going to miss out on (or maybe not, since most of the game streaming market is poorer people...).
I guess the argument of dumbed-down phones for the sake of security/privacy is a reasonable one, but why wouldn't people just buy, like, actual dumb phones? Having a premium phone that you don't actually own just seems like an oxymoron to me. I don't "hack" my own phone and I'm certainly no tinkerer, but being able to actually use the apps my friends use and changing the settings I want to change makes my day to day life a little better every time I do have to use my phone.
Opening up what my friends and family can do with their phones seems like it'd have a lot to gain and very little to lose.
You are relying on a benevolent dictator.
If Apple decided to sell you out you are fucked.
BTW if you are such a security fan would it be good if Apple watches which websites you visit in your browser?
Wouldn't it be even better if only websites are allowed which are hosted on Apple servers on Apples own internet?
Definitely - it is better than keeping tabs on thousands of small predators (apps) that want to milk your data at every instant possible.
Apple's entire business model for decades is about selling hardware and services, not advertisement. And they're doubling down on it.
The alternatives are "open source" masquerators like Ubuntu who had a boatload of Amazon spyware in it.
This is an age old argument about Apple. Last couple of months for Apple has been rough in terms of PR, but I can point you to many many threads about how Apple cares about their users and despite of the "dictator" status, they're a safe bet relative to what other options we have available. It is fashionable during this time to hate on Apple. See @dang's warning at the top of the thread - I've kind of lost hope in HN since it has become too emotional and less objective day by day.
Apple is about selling an image.
And Apple is caring as long the money flows. Don't get fooled, it's always about money. Apple sells products with a high margin that's why they can do without advertisement at the moment.
That can change every moment.
Remember how Steve Jobs laughed at using a stylus for tablets, what do we have now?
New management, new rules.
BTW if Apple wins, developers are fucked. Apples gatekeeping will become the norm.
Developers would be resigned to the role of supplicant, who have to beg to sell their apps in the App Stores.
Just as is already happening in supermarkets and the automotive industry.
The farmers and suppliers are squeezed out and the big corporations make even more money.
It's ironic that once Apple sold Macs with the spin to prevent a 1984 like computer scenario.
Now they are big brother who watches over us to keep us secure.
It"s am incapacitation of its customers.
Please don't compare a tractor/car with the phone. Phone is a unique all-in-one system that has personal biometrics, facial recognition data, accelerometer data of my walking gait, what my sleep patterns are, emotional state, browsing habits, GPS location, home/work trips, messaging data, how often I call my doctor, network access, bluetooth access - I could go on for a few more paragraphs.
Does a tractor even come close to that level of personal information?
I agree with you and the right to repair movement. It bothers me that comes like John Deere are milking innocent farmers with equipment lockdown. It's the same with industrial robot manufacturers like Fanuc and Kuka. I once had to call Fanuc to add 128 additional registers on the controller for $10k! This is pretty rampant in B2B world and now penetrating the customer space - think about all the subscription services today! You don't own anything.
Phone is a different beast all together.
When it comes to developers, I value my device more than the developer ecosystem. For me, the phone is where I store personal data:
- Contacts
- Photos
- Notes
- Messages / SMS
- Health and Fitness
Everything else is secondary to me. So, I could give less of a damn about developers and their ecosystem than the security of the device. If I want to access external service, I use Safari or download an App.
I absolutely do not want Apps to have more control of my device. I am thankful that Apple is the gatekeeper.
I hope people see this - no one outside of HN gives a shit about Developers and I agree with them.
That's like saying I don't care about farmers I get my food from the supermarket.
What do you think who developed the programs to store your personal data?
Apple took over functions from third party apps because clever developers programmed them.
Your entire argument relies on a dichotomy between having a locked down walled garden which gives you privacy, and allowing any apps which takes all privacy away. Are you sure that's actually true? Because for example with PCs it's inverted, Linux is 110% more privacy sensitive than Windows. Openness also means you can protect yourself.
Android has an option allowing the users to install apps from any source. (You could install whole third-party app-stores this way.) Do you know of anyone who uses it?
However, it's always there, so, if my favourite Android app gets deleted from the store, I could still install it.
If your favourite iOS app gets deleted by Apple, what choices do you have?
It's crucial to recognize that for most of Apple's existence, they sold only their own products. Reselling third-party products was a nonexistent or minimal part of Apple's business. That changed with the iTunes Music Store, and it took off from there.
I like Apple's first-party products. I want to buy into that ecosystem. But I never wanted to buy into the ecosystem where Apple is a reseller. I don't want Apple to become Amazon.
> Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc).
They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc).
Honestly I do think Apple has done a great job of device security and I think they could do a lot more with their OS. I don't see why I need an app store to prevent apps from sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, etc -- the OS could protect those from me if that's what Apple wants to do.
> Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
I think something is likely anti-competitive when there is absolutely no market pressure on pricing.
> They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it.
They disallow cloud gaming for the same reason they disallow non-generic screen mirroring. Because people would use it to circumvent the App Store policies. I’m sure it nets them some cash to do this but I’m sure they would be happy to take 30% of the cloud gaming subscription revenue and allow it. Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app?
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand
This is just f.lux. I don’t see Apple banning notes apps in droves. And f.lux ran into the issue of Apple adding the feature and then suddenly f.lux running afoul of “you can’t sell OS functionality” which is a good rule in general. Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
> Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app?
You mean like www.facebook.com?
I fail to see why game streaming is any different than Netflix. You can't compromise the security of a device if nothing is running on the device. So this is only about Apple maintaining control.
> This is just f.lux.
Apple banned every screen-time and parental control app just before they released their own. Google Voice was banned. Apple has removed Podcasting applications for "duplicating functionality of iTunes".
> Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
I have all Android devices and my wife has all Apple devices (and I had all Apple devices in the past). There is almost no significant difference between the experiences -- the most popular apps on the store between the platforms is generally the same apps from the same companies.
Those examples you picked are misleading at best. The Google Voice ban was a weird carrier dispute, parental control apps were banned because they used MDM, and the podcast apps were removed in China because the gov’t made them.
No, I'm not talking about China w/ regards to podcast apps.
And yes parental control apps were banned because they used MDM... Which they used for years and yet all were banned mere months before Apple released their own parental controls. The reason is acceptable the timing is extremely suspicious.
For Google voice, Apple themselves said they banned it because it duplicated functionality and was "confusing". Now it's quite likely the carriers pressured them to ban the app which, in my opinion, is even worse!
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc).
I can concede if there is a clearcut evidence and a source you can provide that proves it with absolute certainty. I don't think its that clear.
Also, the motivation doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple want to trade PR/brand damage for what constitutes pennies so to say for a small app? Do you think that internally Apple's executives were like "Let's copy this app, ban the developer, sustain the PR damage because it is worth making that juicy $80K from sales. Surely, our shareholders would like that!"
Lot of anger with Apple is unsubstantiated and completely emotional. There are a whole clan of people that love/hate Apple since the dawn of the company.
I just don't see why Apple would this. Usually, they buy the whole company (e.g. Shazam).
No. I think Hanlon's razor applies; Apple has a policy against duplicating features, they add more features, existing apps that have these features are now in violation of that policy. It's Kafkaesque, not premeditated.
Hackernews has a regular postings (a few a year) from app developers who's long standing apps are suddenly rejected after a minor update with no recourse and they're appealing to us for help. This isn't rare, it's a regular occurrence. And those are just the ones we know about.
It's users and the developers who are losing out. You never know if Apple's going to destroy your business or nuke your favorite application and it doesn't hurt Apple at all. I doubt they even notice.
No one is forcing you to unlock your phone or install a third party app store. You can have the same relationship with Apple that you do now even if other people can unlock their devices and run their own software.
Also, iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because iOS exploits are so abundant in comparison to Android exploits.
> Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out.
Just so you know, a lot of us would like to develop our software as browser apps, but Apple has deliberately and intentionally limited the capabilities of browser on iOS devices to ensure that developers continue to develop native apps.
The difference would be that the same iPhone has access to Taylor Swift through Spotify, Apple Music, Play Music (does that even exist anymore?) and so on.
Put the app store on the same level of competition and level the playing field of Spotify vs Apple Music in regards to the 30% subscription fee.
There are multiple streaming services, but most people won't pay for multiple services, so there is a lock in effect. And Spotify has a higher market share in music streaming than Apple has in cell phones.
Switching my $10/month payment from Spotify to iTunes is negligible compared to replacing a $700+ smartphone (which is likely on a payment plan). And in the latter case I lose access to every single app I have paid for over a decade.
You must have a wildly different experience with YouTube Music then me. This forced migration was the final tipping point to push me to Spotify. YouTube Music's UX is _horrendous_ compared to Google Play Music, and the pre-canned radio stations are almost completely missing.
I would like the developer to have the choice of what percent Apple gets (e.g. slider from 10% -> 30%) and that also determines the level of support (and discoverability on the App store?) that Apple gives. Would that type of system work?
There are lots of questions around compensation equality (i.e. the big companies get richer, the poor get charged more) but something besides the blanket 30% rule based on some metric sounds feasible to me
Sure, if only Apple would itemize the support costs, developers could see how much support each position on the slider will earn us. Surely this won’t reveal that it’s almost pure profit.
That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did.
Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it.
Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
Contracts are not laws, if you breech a contract then one of the possible outcomes is that you will end up in court arguing whether the contract is valid. That is what happened in this case. The law would be especially toothless if you had to obey a contract in order to dispute its validity.
The court told Epic how to get in compliance with Apple, they refused, Apple in their terms clearly states they have the right to terminate their account. That's the facts of the case, it doesn't matter what anyone feels.
This topic has been brought up a lot in these conversations and I’ve missed the substance. Which laws do we suspect Apple may have broken with their App Store contracts?
You can read Epic's court filing but the tl;dr is that Epic alleges that the terms of the contract restrict Epic and other parties from competing with Apple, that Apple uses their market power in one area to get an unfair advantage in other areas (such as payment processing), and they cite the Sherman act as the primary legal basis of their claim that those terms are illegal.
This case is likely to last for years so it is very much too soon to be predicting who will win.
Supporting Epic in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform owners into giving them whatever terms they want. Don’t do it.
No, I think what they mean is that for instance, Apple Music is on Android, but Apple takes payments through its own platform, not through Google Play, therefore denying Google their 30% cut on apple music payments. Many smaller companies are not able to negotiate the same thing.
That's very unlikely, because the court can't force Apple to provide a special deal to Epic. Whatever decision they arrive at, it must be generally applicable.
Massive off-topic aside: Would you mind stop referring to me as he, and more generally don't assume someones gender identity. Sorry about it, just shitting me off a bit lately.
I assume that the Epic supporters rather are hoping to get Apple to reduce the 30% on all transactions (or on all transactions of some type), not just to get Epic to be a special case. I'm not sure they have a case, but I think you're misrepresenting them.
Well, of course; if someone is supporting a company's position because of that company's "character", that would be absurd indeed. Both sides are doing it for profit. That doesn't mean we can't support one or the other on other grounds.
With no skin in the game, I could just as easily counter with:
Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.
Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps. Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.
>>If they don’t like the terms they can simply choose to not develop there.
Sure, but sometimes, as a society, we decide that this is simply not ok.
I know this is not a completely correct comparison, but the main counter against forcing businesses to accept non-white customers was "well, they can simply go somewhere else, what's the big deal". We as a society decided that no, actually, it is a big deal, and regardless of whether you can "simply" go somewhere else or not, you shouldn't have to.
I'm hoping that this will be the first victory in a string of rulings forcing platform holders to open them up, because we value that more than we value the platform holders ability to keep them closed. Apple just happened to be first.
Yes, because buying an Android phone instead of an iPhone is like moving to another country.
As a consumer, you can push for improvements by voting with your wallet and flat out not buying Apple products. As a developer, you can push for improvements by not supporting that platform. Given that you have alternatives to Apple both as a developer and as a consumer, I don't think there's any justification for the government to force Apple to accept Epic blatantly breaking the terms they agreed to comply with.
I guess that's what remains to be seen. But Epic seems to be throwing their most valuable property at it right now, so they must have some degree of confidence that a larger player will back them on this.
"The kind of common theme is the abuse of their market power to maintain their market dominance, to crush competitors, to exclude folks from their platform and to earn monopoly rents."
Because Epic is happy with the console makers, but they're not happy with Apple.
The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
But that also applies to every single current game console and
almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from
smartwatches to home automation.
That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge
competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had
Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5%
market share? I think not.
> But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation.
That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
Tim Sweeney has made some statements about this, to try and walk a line where, while the situation is equally true about game consoles, they shouldn't count/shouldn't be forced to be open because their platforms are less innately profitable. That is, consoles are sold at a loss and have a lot of R&D costs, and so they have more rights to maintain an exclusionary platform than Apple.
I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Let's assume your pessimistic case is exactly right, so what? He's allowed to sue one person who is breaking the law while not suing another one. He's allowed to eat the console slice of cake and complain to the courts that the apple slice of cake had the wrong color icing even if they both have the wrong color icing.
He's also allowed to believe that there is a stronger case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the other people later if he wins the first suit convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
Yeah, but I'd imagine if someone offered you to have Steam on ps5, you'd jump in instantly. At least I would. I'd even pay more for the nice compact hardware if it is currently subsidized.
It shows they have a majority share of the mobile OS market in the US; therefore, they can basically act like they have a monopoly in the US. Everyone else is a distant second, so they can monopolize or attempt to monopolize the mobile app market.
That's not how any of this works. Majority share is a lot of power, but the theory of how monopolies work doesn't support the idea that anyone with a majority of the market has monopoly power.
It's most definitely how this works. Monopoly power isn't some binary attribute. It's not like you flip a switch one day from not being a monopoly to suddenly becoming a monopoly. Monopoly power is accrued over time with increasing market share. Very few companies have the kind of market share we are talking about here with Apple and the US mobile OS market. Take for example, Walmart, who many people think of being gigantic in the retail sector in the US. They only account for 16% of US retail sales. If Apple only had 16% of the US mobile OS market there wouldn't even be a discussion about anti-trust laws and Apple wouldn't have just made this announcement -> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm
1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line.
2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
Also have to mention apple is charging a fee way outside the norm for a payment processor at 30%.
Have to also remember to deploy to the app store and a lot of the development has to be done on a Mac. So it is really equivalent of saying you must buy the factory from us, only sell in our store, and only use our payment processor.
> Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store
Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
The typical store model also has the store owner selecting products, paying in advance to the suppliers, and assuming partial liability - especially over fakes. Comparing it to a mall makes more sense IMHO, given that it's the developer that initiates the transaction here, pays to the mall owner, and assumes all liability.
P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
Very broadly speaking it's perfectly legal to have a monopoly on something, and Apple has a monopoly on the thing they created, and that's fine.
It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here.
Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing you can say is, "I don't think Apple is being very nice."
And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying, legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it.
Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect.
The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
IBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system.
The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
IBM did wish to maintain control, that's why they copyrighted the BIOS. But when Compaq reversed engineer it, it was obvious that there was no way to sue without inviting more legal scrutiny.
My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
That also isn’t true. Compaq had to do a clean room implementation so it wouldn’t get sued. The anti-trust suit was dropped in 1983 - around the same time that Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS.
The law (Sherman Act) does actually say that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ... any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” The test you mentioned is basically an attempt to explain the meaning of this contentious word “monopolize.”
The Sherman Act is not the only relevant law here; the Clayton Act is relevant as law. (And was passed because the Sherman Act was too narrow). You do not need to be a monopoly to violate the Clayton Act, and most antitrust legislation nowadays is I believe brought under that and not the Sherman Act.
In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.)
However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Epic specifically brought several Sherman Act section 2 claims against Apple. The first step of proving a section 2 claim is establishing monopoly power.
So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.
How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged 30%. They have not increased that as their marketshare increased. Should Apple be forced to allow an app to be released free and then accept payments outside of Apple?
Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing that justifies receiving any money at all?
The ide, language, servers, and platform to support the app aren't worth anything? Really not trying to be dense here, I just don't see how this isn't just Epic thinking a price is too high and wanting to pay less.
I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. I agree that they could do that, but I don't see the reason to force them to. They created what they wanted because they didn't like the current offerings at the time–Epic or anyone else is free to do the same.
> I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things.
Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
> But you've arbitrarily defined what a market is.
It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that.
> By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.
Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee. How about that?
To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
Because their current behaviour is anti-competitive rent-seeking, and limits innovation.
Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
I guess I don't see them mandating the use of their products. You can have your app on iOS or not. I just don't see the moral issue here. They've never raised the prices and have had this price since they had 0 3rd party apps so I have a hard time seeing it as rent seeking. Do they make a lot of money? Yes, they do, but is that enough to force them not too? I'm just not convinced of that yet.
Apple are mandating the use of their Apple ID and Apple Payment System (aka products). The first might have a security rational, the second does not, yet devs must pay Apple's fees even if they are higher than alternatives[, a defacto price raise].
It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.
Put Fortnite into a box and put it on the shelf at a store which will take 30% in margin on that sale (probably more). Should that store also be forced to allow buyers to purchase it off their store shelf through a payment to someone else? Of course not.
It's payment in-app that are the issue, not payments to the store. Apple played no role in generating these in-app payments, and shouldn't have the right to mandate use of its payment solution. If you bought Fortnite at a store, would the store get money over purchases made later inside the Fortnite application? Of course not.
Apple is a monopoly that controls what applications can run on iPhones. Being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. What is illegal is for a monopoly to engage in predatory practices, which Apple clearly does.
I was referring to the specific point that is mentioned in the article, that Apple demanded 30% from Fortnite sales that had nothing to do with being listed in the store. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Microsoft went from open options to package deals with no options. iOS (and vendored Android) started out with nothing, then added a store. There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario.
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
> There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario.
While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS has made things worse for independent developers, and is laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized code.
From our perspective: yes. But legally and from the perspective or the mass-marketed users there really isn't much for them to think about or consider in terms of flexibility of application installation. (freedom is such a vague term to describe platform access - are you really free if you don't harvest your self-grown silicon chrystals, diffuse the chips yourself, write the firmware and OS yourself etc?)
Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides) it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.
I don't know if you remember the 90s, but at the time MS was the ONLY monopoly in personal computing. Intel was the other big force, but even they had competition on AMD. All other companies had not even a slim of hope of controlling the ecosystem like MS had. Now we have Apple, but you still can buy Google devices and do whatever you want outside their walled garden.
I think its really important the narrative stays clear concerning this: Its never been about users having choice (because users do have choice): Its about Developers not having a choice.
Refusing to release an iOS app for your web application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
Of course the argument for this is "why are iOS users more inclined to purchase games and IAPs compared to Android users?". I'm legitimately curious about this, but my first guess is these two factors:
A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more likely to have disposable income
B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
Don't forget that Android has more than one store and depending on the company you buy your phone from it might even come with another store pre-installed, such as the Samsung store.
So comparing iOS store to only the play store will ignore a section of Android users.
I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android. If they don't make as much money that is not Google or Apple's fault.
What I think is an argument against Apple is that users want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to relax their rules on the Appstore.
> I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android.
This is much like saying that having a monopoly on retail stores in California isn't a problem because producers can just sell their product in New York. Obviously that doesn't allow them to reach the same customers. They aren't alternatives to each other because you need both to reach your entire customer base. Compare to Walmart where if you don't sell through them, the exact same customers can easily walk across the street and buy your product at Target.
That's not the same. People living in California cannot relocate to NY just to use a different store. iPhone users can in fact buy an Android phone to escape Apple. I think this line of argument is very weak and will never succeed in an antitrust trial.
> People living in California cannot relocate to NY just to use a different store. iPhone users can in fact buy an Android phone to escape Apple.
In what sense can people in California not relocate to NY but people with iPhones can relocate to Android? In both cases moving is possible but the cost is far in excess of the cost of the typical product you'd buy in the store.
In the very definite sense that Android and iPhone are brands of mobile phones available everywhere in the US, which you can buy any minute you want. You literally just need to buy a new one. That's not the same for the place where you live.
Even "just buy a new one" is laying out hundreds of dollars, if not over a thousand, to buy a $1 app. But then you also have to re-buy all of your existing apps and learn a new operating system. There may be apps that only exist on one platform, or services like iCloud that you would have a cost to transition away from. You may have friends who use iMessage and can't convince them to switch to anything else. It may force you into relationships you don't want -- maybe you don't want to give Google all your data and regard that as a significant cost.
That's normal in the world of software. There are thousands of titles that are Windows only. To use them you need to buy a PC with a windows OS, even if the software you want to run is $1 or free. The same applies to macOS or even Linux.
Ultimately, this isn't about App Store revenue. Yes, iOS generates far more IAP revenue than Android, in general. But, does this apply to Fortnite (maybe), xCloud (no), Hey (no), and the many other apps which have been Banned By Apple?
I'm not talking about writing an application for iOS and Android, then selling it in the store. I do think that's a separate case.
I'm talking about, as the best examples, xCloud and Hey. Web services which need to offer a mobile experience. Microsoft will be fine without Apple, but Hey faced legitimate business issues when Apple kicked them out. These companies are uninterested in the App Store Economy: They just want distribution.
How were they a monopoly if Apple had their own OS? As did many others?
Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software. What Apple does is far worse imo, not just bundling software, but the control over the store/devices is nuts.
Apple had less than 5% of the desktop market. At some point in the 90s Apple was going bankrupt quickly! MS had to step in and invest in Apple so that it wouldn't close down leaving MS as the only company in the personal computer OS market.
Microsoft “invested” a token $250 million in Apple. The same quarter, Apple spent $100 million to buy PoweComputings Mac license. The $150 net did not save Apple. Apple lost far more money than that before it became profitable.
What MS did was promise to continue releasing both Office and IE for the Mac.
> Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software.
Not quite. Microsoft's antitrust violations involved coercing other companies to bundle IE with their products. In particular:
1. They forced OEMs to ship IE instead of Netscape as a condition of obtaining Windows OEM licenses.
2. They made deals with ISPs to ship IE instead of Netscape (for example on AOL CDs).
3. They threatened to pull Office for Mac if Apple shipped Netscape with Mac OS instead of IE.
The question of whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was never decided by the appeals court. It was remanded back to the district court for additional proceedings which never happened as the lawsuit was eventually settled.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.
> hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps
This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store.
> about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView).
I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users".
I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple.
They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
By disallowing dynamic code execution, Apple does disallow other browsing engines. It does not matter what language Apple uses to disallow other browsing engines, since the effect is the same.
Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
If that were the case, you would have seen Chrome’s market share increase faster in the EU than the US where there was no browser ballot. That wasn’t the case.
The premise of browser lock-in was that Microsoft was tying IE to Windows and then encouraging the creation of websites that required IE. If Europe broke the lock on global websites that required IE, that would enable people all over the world to switch to other browsers at the same time.
What do you think had more to do with IE losing market share worldwide “browser choice” or the most popular website in the world hawking their browser on the front page and MS losing mobile - you can’t very well be IE only and want to work on mobile browsers.
What requires it to be a larger effect? Your claim was that "browser choice" was ineffective because non-Microsoft browsers lost share, but that's nonsense. Microsoft browsers lost share. That there were multiple reasons for this is no evidence that browser choice didn't work. The thing it was supposed to do happened.
I’m quoting from *your source”. How would Microsoft not lose share if they weren’t on mobile? We have a control group - the US. Where there was no browser choice forced on Microsoft, they lost share faster and where Google was more popular.
Losing share faster rather than at the same rate is evidence that there are independent factors involved, which means that it isn't a valid control group.
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink?
Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android). Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't do it.
Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely.
And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
Signal doesn't auto-sign up kids for premium content. Firefox doesn't run local apps.
If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
> You don’t think it’s a security issue for apps to be able to intercept your text messages
Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted.
> Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access.
Also known as "private APIs" etc.
> Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content. When dealing with security issues you don't just imagine the perfect case scenario.
And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
> No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content.
So reject the dodgy apps then. What justification is that for denying it to Signal? In particular, what justification is that for denying it to Signal but not iMessage?
> And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
Signal and WhatsApp on iPhones can't send SMS. Chrome on iPhones isn't Chrome, it's Safari with a Chrome logo.
When the effect of the "security restrictions" is in practice to ban the competing apps while Apple exempts its own apps from the security restrictions, it's the same thing.
How is Apple not going to “exempt” itself from having privileged access to its own operating system? Signal is not “banned” from the App Store neither is Chrome - they both exist on the App Store.
Signal is an app for sending text messages and Apple doesn't allow it to send SMS text messages. Example of why this is a security vulnerability rather than a security feature: Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others. Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others.
How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
> How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
It means you're using a different app for secure messaging and SMS. If they're the same app then it knows to not send SMS to the person you have encrypted messaging set up with.
It also requires you to use multiple messaging apps, which increases cognitive load and the potential for mistakes, because there is nothing available on iOS that can both send SMS and send secure messages to Android devices.
> So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
Smart people make mistakes all the time. Isn't that your whole thing about not giving the user full control over the device?
You mean like making a mistake and clicking “yes” and giving permission to all of your text messages to a third party that can then log it and use it to take over accounts?
How many people trusted the “no logging VPNs” before the ES hacks showed they were in fact logging everything?
Your citation has nothing to do with Apple banning apps and the idea the article cites is as old as dirt and has been discussed since way before the App Store.
There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
That is not what they are referring to. For some strange reason there is a myth that you can’t ship an app on iOS if Apple has a competing service. Even though there are all sorts of existence proofs that it isn’t truth.
>What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape.
Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers.
Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.
Very good point and my example was not quite right. Although Apple’s market share is nothing even close to what MSFT had. It would be very difficult to prove in court that Apple is flexing market power when (a) they apply the same cut across the board, (b) competition charges the same amount, and more importantly (c) they have not changed it since inception. I think lawsuits are only possible once Apple crosses 50% market share which I don’t see happening.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s.
It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.
Android is another phone platform with a larger market share. This is hardly a monopoly.
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
You can install any other store on Android; you can enable installation from any source on Android; you don't even need to jailbreak to get this option on Android.
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1] and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly power.
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. It's well known that iPhone users tend to hold on to their phone for longer before upgrading compared to Android users, who often switch phones much earlier. You need to look at operating-system market share based on active users(e.g. web tracking), not "who upgraded their phone this quarter". In that regard, Apple has over 56% market share in the US and over 24% market share globally [1].
Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court.
No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping.
This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world.
> First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones.
That's fair, however I don't believe web usage is the correct metric to use either. In any case the numbers are still a far cry from the 95% Microsoft held during their antitrust case.
> Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other.
By that logic Nintendo games don't "compete" with Xbox or Playstation games. I disagree with this narrowly defined view of the market in which Nintendo games, Xbox games, and Playstation games are viewed as competing in three separate markets, instead of competing in the overall video game market.
> They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution.
I disagree that this is a valid antitrust market and I think Epic is going to have a hard time convincing a court to accept this narrow market definition. US courts generally frown upon treating aftermarkets of a single brand's product as a valid antitrust market unless specific circumstances are met.
Those circumstances usually involve situations where the consumer lacks information about aftermarket restrictions or policies when the original product is purchased. In this case, iPhone customers know when they buy an iPhone that they will only be able to install apps via the App Store. If they are unhappy with this limitation they have an option of buying a different phone without such limitations. If they decide to go ahead and buy anyway, they did so knowingly, therefore antitrust liability is not likely in those circumstances.
> This is going to come down to how a court interprets this
I think many people are going to be disappointed by this. Aftermarket scenarios are not uncommon in antitrust law and the existing precedent is not in Epic's favor.
Market share does not actually determine monopoly. You can have 100% market share and not be a monopoly. Conversely, you can have 50% market share and be a monopoly.
Apple has more active users in the US than Android btw.
The fallacy being repeated is actually people defining monopolies by referencing market share.
In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21)
Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)
Unless you believe a market that includes nearly the entire population of the United States to be "typical", are we not then in agreement that Apple can still be found to be a monopoly, according to the excerpt you just posted?
The relevant geographic market for this court case will be the entire United States, yes. It is possible, but rather unlikely given existing historical precedent, that Apple's current US market share will be considered a monopoly.
The real fallacy here is attempting to frame 'monopoly' by its dictionary definition, and not the definition used by the government[1]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
The definition you've linked does not really contradict my point considering it says that courts typically do not find monopoly power below 50% market share.
Are monopolies strictly and solely defined by market share and not power and influence on the market in addition to abuses done through that power and influence? Defining monopolies only by market shares seems to be an outdated view. Things are different now. Even with that definition though, there is definitely a duopoly.
Strictly speaking, no. Monopoly power has been defined by the Supreme Court as the "power to control prices and exclude competition" and it is not based on a specific market share threshold. However, courts tend to start by examining market share in determining how much power a company has in a given market, and (as I posted in a sibling comment) they typically do not find monopoly power when a company has less than 50% of the market.
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
They effectively made it impossible to buy a computer without paying them. They profited even when they were not part of a transaction which killed BeOS and others.
The monopoly word gets thrown around a lot in this context. But it's not clear where the monopoly is, in a legal, anti-competitive sense. Can you define what Apple's market monopoly is?
WebAssemblu + WebGPU is the only hope of breaking free of the walled garden that is the App Store.
I wish Sweeney would wake up and realize this. Sure, PWA support isn't great on iOS, but if you click this link below you will be transported into a web version of Diablo that is completely playable on any iOS device:
This doesn't completely work because of all the missing features that Apple's iOS Safari does not implement. And you cannot even get a different browser (engine), because of Apple's App Store rules.
Off the top of my head, iOS Safari doesn't support notifications or (at least on iPhone) fullscreen API. Surprisingly there is controller support
It could be done in a different browser that supports these features, of course. But on iOS, there is no other browser, and Apple prevent any other browser from being put onto the App Store. Chrome and Firefox on iOS is just a skin around iOS Safari with bookmark syncing features. They have no ability to implement these features on iOS.
Huh? I don't play any Epic games... But just because they refuse to pay a 30% fee?
Apple is only the distributor here. If they would charge a reasonable processing fee (4-5% like credit card companies do) nobody would have had - presumably - a problem.
Unlike with most (all?) other platforms there is no way to install apps from any alternate sources.
30% is the modern version of way-laying. (IMHO at least)
Remember this whenever you hear someone say their company is too big to fail when dealing with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google and others: no company is too big to fail.
Just as important: they are companies, not people. We (or perhaps: some of us) fall for the idea to personify the companies or brands that we use(d) because that is what some of the products might mean to use while we use them. But it's still products and companies, and our interaction is often limited to legal, retail and marketing.
I don't think "too big to fail" is a phrase used outside the context of government bailouts. The public is acutely aware of the life and death of major companies and brands, see GE or Ford nostalgia.
I'm sure you can find some exceptional abuse of vernacular out there, but the term was coined for something else and in this thread you are alone in using it this way...
But you understood it anyway, didn't you? And on the off chance that you would not I provided sufficient context making it plain that this was not intended in the original version but in a slightly modified version, which has been used often enough in my hearing that I got to notice it.
Those two cases stand out for me because they ended exactly like the one on display here.
This is a blunder. Epic will do just fine without Apple, but Apple is alienating people like me who use their products and are predisposed to support them. Our eyes are opening to their true nature. Full disclosure: I worked for Apple for almost 20 years.
Apple have been exceedingly clear about their App Store policies for a long time. And they’re not so out of step with Google, Sony and Microsoft stores. What true nature is being revealed?
My top of the line MBP died aprox 2 years after I bought it. By that time there were thousands of people with the same problem on the internet. Obviously I had to buy another Mac to keep on working.
If Apple had cared about its customers it would have taken the defective machines early on and either exchanged them for new machines, or at least offered a proportion of its retail price towards a new Mac. Apple didn't do nothing of the sorts.
It took almost 2 more years and 3-4 action class lawsuits for Apple to finally start a repair program.
By that time I could't even sell the damn thing after the repairs. I ended up giving it away to a junior dev and guess what? It died a year later of the same problem.
Apple to Epic and Facebook: Our 30% cut is the cost of doing business on our turf. If you refuse to pay it or you draw attention to it, Bruno will pay you a visit and break your kneecaps.
On one hand I really hope this breaks apart Apple and Google's duoploy in mobile, basically acting as the gatekeeper to all users around the world.
On the other hand, I don't feel good about the way Epic went about this. Makes it hard to support them because they were the ones who first started the war by deliberately breaking the terms of service. There's gotta be a better way.
Epic has a more clear case if Epic does what they want and Apple takes action against it than if Epic doesn't do what they want because they fear Apple will takr action against it. Now, the actions have taken place, there's no hypotheticals that courts dislike addressing.
Commented this in the other thread on this subject, but think it's still relevant here.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
What in god's name is with all the bootlickers in this thread? I have no love for Apple or Epic. But if this lawsuit leads to better treatment of third-party developers on the platform and Apple not being able to arbitrarily control what apps consumers get to download, I don't see why Epic is being painted as the "bad guy" by so many people here. Apple has been behaving in crazy anti-competitive ways (just look at how they historically treated any developer that dared make an app that competed with their own) for years now. It's time for the hammer to fall.
It's disingenuous to claim Apple built and promoted the platform by themselves - third party developers are a huge reason behind iOS's success, and the iPhone wouldn't be what it is today if it only had first-party apps.
And? Those third party developers have already been compensated fully based on the terms they agreed to when they contributed to the platform. Apple owes them nothing at this point. Obviously it is probably in Apple's best interest to treat them fairly, but that is up to Apple to decide.
And to respond to GP. This has nothing to do with "bootlicking". The same thing should apply regardless of the company.
Exactly: a market duopoly doesn't mean they don't have disproportionate control over consumer choices especially when there are feature and ecosystem differences between the platforms.
I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because you paid someone doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you to do something with the thing you bought. If the thing you bought doesn't do what you want it to do, then buy a different thing that lets you do what you want. And in this case there are literally thousands of other phones you can buy.
> doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you
Apple literally doesn't have to write any software! All we're asking is for Apple to remove the software they've written that intentionally blocks any other software from working!
Android has a checkbox to install apps from any source. Hardly anyone even knows about its existence, but it means that we don't have to have a black market for phones with a given app installed (context: iPhones with Fortnite already installed were being sold for 2k+ per pop on eBay when the app was blocked).
They control the distribution channels of a general computing platform at their whim.
They push their own services like Apple Music by having pre installed apps, free app store placement, not having to pay the 30% cut over other competitors like Spotify. In a low margin business that is live or die.
They force a browser like Firefox to not have its own engine as well.
The platform was built by every consumer, app devs, hardware vendors, and many others.
These players of the platform voluntarily cooperate with apple, and allow apple the oversized power, because the economic values of doing that is higher than other behaviors.
There isn't a moral high ground for apple, nor a particularly outsized contribution by apple considering their profit from the platform.
What you said is so superficial that it does not even refer to the right topic.
When you build a platform and it becomes so successful that it forms part of the foundation for an entire society's technological existence, you lose the privilege of arbitrarily controlling that platform. Electricity companies don't get to skim 30% off of the revenue of any factory that makes widgets using the electricity company's electricity. Cell phone carriers don't get to skim 30% off of any orders placed over their networks. Apple shouldn't be able to skim 30% off of every transaction that happens to be made on an iOS device. I don't give a damn about esoteric arguments about Apple being a "private company" or whatever: it's unacceptable for society to pay a 30% tax to Apple on a big chunk of the economic activity of an entire society. No taxation without representation, right?
Android isn't much better in this regard. There is realistic choice of two smartphone operating system vendors, both of which exercise total and random control over their stores. If you look at the frontpage of HN today, several fediverse apps were just thrown off the Google Play store, so it's a choice between pest and cholera
Being aware of it doesn't mean it was your preference. What if you want an iPhone for the hardware and bought it in spite of rather than because of Apple's restrictions on third party apps?
Moreover, the app you want may not have existed when you bought your first iPhone and became locked into the platform. Or it may have been on the iOS app store at that time and was subsequently removed.
I wasn’t aware that Apple would remove an extremely popular app from the app store without giving users any option to continue using it, no.
I’m not particularly invested in Fortnite, but if Apple removes one of my favorite apps I’m going to get really cranky at any friend that suggests that I should have planned ahead for what to do if the app dev and the phone maker got in fight years after I bought my phone.
This would be like if there were one single store on the planet and if they don't want to sell your shit everyone just says, "That's their right, shouldn't have gotten into the business of selling things."
But there are 2 stores, and you make the choice of packaging for one or the other. You can also make your own store, if you want. (In this analogy, that is. You cannot make a store inside a store, that’d be silly.)
Basically, you can still sell on Android, or, make your own phone/mobile operating system?
Shopping malls owned by supermarket companies do exactly that. A hypermarket in the centre, owned by the supermarket company itself, and hundreds of smaller stores around, operated by others in the same building.
What happens when Target is the only store that 13.5% of the population can access? What happens if it become 25%? 50%? 100%? At what threshold is it proper to put in restrictions on Target?
This is true, and perhaps consumers in those areas should have more control over the choices that business provides. National corporations with local monopolies are often the least critiqued anti-consumer actor.
They shouldn't, but it's not about that. Apple can sell whatever they like or don't on the Apple Store, that's fine. The problem is that they sell consumers a "general computing" device, and then enforcing that every single transaction on said device goes through them. They are not only processing those transactions, not only taking a cut, but also deciding which ones are ok and which ones aren't. Meaning, that if you and me wanted to do business together selling iOS apps, we would need to get blessing from apple. The argument here is that maybe it shouldn't be like this. After all, we don't need to ask Microsoft for permission for the same thing, and on Android if I don't like the rules established by Google, I can put my app on the Amazon store, one of the many 3rd party ones, or just send my customers the .apk directly - Google cannot stop two parties from conducting business, they can merely offer a convenient alternative that involves google getting a cut. Of course apple will respond with argument that this tight control is beneficial to customers - and they are welcome to make such argument.
So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? (I’m not trying to be obtuse). I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook.
And again—-going back to the Walmart/Target analogy, if you wanted to enter into a business deal with a third party in a Walmart, Walmart would demand a cut too.
>>So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software?
No, that's not what I said. I said general computing device. For a lot of people nowadays, their phone or tablet is the only computing device they have. The argument here is that Apple is stopping two sides from engaging in a fully legal business transaction. Epic wants to sell you their game, you want to buy that game. The fact that it's running on a device manufactured by Apple is only tangential here - Apple should have the freedom to run their app store however they see fit, but Epic's argument is that they shouldn't be a gatekeeper to allowing and purchasing applications on their devices, because that stifles competition and innovation on the market(which the government is trying to protect). I think it's really well explained here[0]
It's as if Nescafe tried to forbid anyone from making capsules that work in their machines - their argument could be the same, we made the machine, our capsules guarantee correct operation and quality standard, therefore our machines shouldn't work with anything else. And yet....it would be illegal for them to do so, just like it is illegal for a car manufacturer to forbid you from using 3rd party replacement parts. They can void your warranty, sure, but they legally cannot forbid you from fitting 3rd party replacements. But it's about freedom of choice - if you want to buy original Mercedes parts, you can. If you only want to buy apps vetted and approved by apple - you can.
>> I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook.
Literally no one wants to take this away from you. If you want to only install apps from the App Store that have gone through apple's approval process - please continue to do so.
>>So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction?
The distinction isn't that everything should be compatible with everything. Just that anyone should be allowed to make software for anything, which the platform holders are trying to forbid. Apple is just the first one - but I'd hope that eventually the same argument will be made against Microsoft and Sony and yes, you will be allowed to make a game for PS4/Xbox without having to explicitly ask those companies for approval. The example with the printer is an interesting one, because like I mentioned earlier - manufacturers cannot forbid you from neither making replacement cartridges for their printers, nor from you using them. The ability to do so for hardware has been enshrined in law for a long time. Why not for software?
Target might exist alongside several other competing retailers on the same block. The friction for a customer to leave and shop at a competing retailer is low. To extend this analogy, The Apple store exists in a company town, and the friction for a customer to leave 'Appletown' shop at competing retailers in 'AndroidLand' is intentionally as high as possible [1].
This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of control third parties should have over the App Store as retailer, it's an argument for why this current arrangement is exploitative, and not analogous to conventional retail platforms like Target.
That doesn't have much bearing on the cost of switching considering most of that friction is borne of investment into a particular platform and the intentional difficulty in migrating to another platform. This is the central caveat of walled gardens, the walls do not only serve to keep unwanted things outside, they also serve to keep you inside.
The analogy to a company town is apt. When you embarked for a town, both AndroidLand and Appletown were the same distance away, but now that you have settled down the prospect of migrating outside is considerably more difficult.
What high cost of switching? There are hardly any popular iOS only apps or popular apps that people paid for instead of buying a subscription that works cross platform.
As far as media that you bought, music that you bought on iTunes has been DRM free for almost a decade.
Even with movies, you can blame the lock in on the studios that don’t participate in “Movies Anywhere”. Any movie from the participating studios that you buy on Prime Video, Google Play, Vudu, or iTunes is automatically considered purchased on the other platforms.
Most of the money being spent on the App Store are from in app consumables.
You lost me. I just switched carriers from T-Mobile to ATT last week. I had an easy chance to switch to Android (I didn’t) but the cost to me would have been close to nil—other than time. All my apps are agnostic to iOS/Android (same for the 3 other people on my family plan). So just like I’d have to spend time learning the Layout of a Walmart if I left target, I’d have time costs to switch to Android.
And the example you gave of the Kindle still doesn’t make me question the App Store market: if kindle had a kiosk in a target to sell ebooks, I bet target would demand a cut too.
If what you’re after is data portability then solve for that. I’d rather have a law that covers all digital companies rather than devolve the App Store into some unregulated flee market.
I’ve noticed in gaming circles that people are very anti-Epic Games and will take any opposing position no matter the facts.
Epic has been trying to position their own game store as a competitor to Steam. One of the things they have been doing is spending money paying for games to be exclusive to their platform. This is seen as the ultimate evil by gamers who want all of their games in one place (on Steam).
I'm with you. They're both billions of dollars worth companies arguing about who should get which percentage of additional millions of dollars of profit.
I'm not invested at all in this debate, but I do silently hope that Epic succeeds purely for the little guys who may benefit from that.
Epic might be painted in a bad light because they’re 40% Tencent owned, and they happen to purposely get banned and sue Apple (in a PR campaign style) shortly after Trump sign an executive order targeting Tencent’s WeChat.
Or people might enjoy being able to use a device without having to worry about viruses and whatnot.. a problem plaguing Windows and slowly starting to affect many Android users as well. And while they might feel comfortable being able to avoid such viruses themselves, then they likely have friends and family that will suffer from it (you might think it’s easy not to install a different App Store, just like you might think it’s easy not to click on phishing links in your mailbox.. but it unfortunately isn’t easy for the average user).
Or people might worry about losing all sorts of privacy as a result of the Apple being forced to open up various parts of their system.
I'm surprised there's no effort by companies to negotiate collectively with Apple, as one entity. A single company means nothing to Apple, the company often risks a big chunk of their revenues, Apple risks basically nothing.
Surely there are things that such app developer organisation could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first, exclusive deals, etc.
Paradoxically, if a group of small businesses being harmed by a monopoly get together to do something about it, they can themselves run afoul if antitrust regulation.
Epic had a golden goose here that printed money for them.
Now they are shooting the goose because they want a bigger share of the egg.
The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet. Instead of riding the wave they are getting off of it.
Can people sell the goods that they buy from Epic? What will happen to these goods ten year from now?
to be honest with you, I'll be happy if either one of them wins. One of the unusual cases when I think both outcomes would bring about positive change.
> The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet.
People understand perfectly well that Fortnite skins have no intrinsic value. They buy them because they enjoy the game and the skins have subjective value to them. Maybe the game will be around in a decade, maybe it won't; it doesn't matter.
Fortnite is far from the only game with paid cosmetics, it's a model that appears to work quite well from a business perspective, even over time. CS:GO has had weapon skins in lootboxes for 7 years now. (That's just one example.)
Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions?
It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.
They are not acting rational in these kind of discussions.
Most Apple users are deeply locked into the ecosystem. I guess it is sunk cost fallacy, now even though the cracks are clearly showing they don't want to see Apple fail in any way. You'll see people rationalize anything Apple does without blinking.
And it makes sense too. If I use a mac, iphone, apple watch, airpods, have all my photos on iCloud etc I would not want Apple to face any hurdles.
I'm on weasel's side, but I can understand Apple wanting to keep iOS trusted by its users by restricting unapproved software coded to their current native app API layer. What I can't understand is the harm for end users in apps using 3rd party payment processing without giving Apple a cut. That restriction encourages a worse experience for users who now have to go to the vendor's website to complete a purchase they could be making in-app.
> Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions?
I don’t see why this is relevant. Apple runs a business. If you force it to walk away from income sources, you could just as well force any other company to do the same. So even if consumers would win, how would it justify the enforcement?
I don’t need apps on my iPhone to do 100% of all things that apps can do. I am fine with some restrictions, so long as there’s enough reliability, consistency, privacy and security.
If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores:
1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection restrictions.
2. Epic will want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app purchases.
3. Google will want a store that allows them to track your location in the background regardless of your consent.
4. The New York Times will want a store where you cannot find a way to cancel your subscription.
And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and end up with a poor user experience.
And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for me.
I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.
But why could you not just keep using the AppStore and nothing else? Out of the things you've listed the only one who would actually consider leaving the AppStore would be Epic.
Take Amazon’s Audible as an example. I use that. I want to continue using that. If Amazon launched its own store on iOS, does that mean they stop distributing it on the native App Store? If they do make it exclusive to their store, I will have to download their store.
I really don’t like the 30%, but that I see the line Apple shouldn’t cross. Loosening restrictions or opening it up for more stores effectively means the iOS platform wouldn’t be worth What it is now.
Facebook has been pretty vocal about iOS privacy restrictions as well. They don’t need to make their own store on Android; but they very well might on iOS.
But Android exists, and has multiple noteworthy alternative app stores (including, relevant here, the Epic Games App) and this has not come to pass; every mass-market app is on the Google Play Store, excepting now Fortnite.
Epic previously tried to build out a Fortnite playerbase on Android outside of the Play Store and was unsuccessful in drawing in players, so they had to upload it to the Play Store (which has now been removed).
Google is also being sued for not going far enough in allowing Epic to do what they want to do. I think that is the proof positive that Epic doesn't just want additional app stores and sideloading, but that they want concessions that will enable Epic to be successful in forcing users onto their own store.
I would argue that this is because there's far less to gain on Android vs. iOS in terms of data collection and privacy by leaving the Play Store. It's pretty apparent just by perusing the two SDKs how much less information you can gain about devices through Apple's APIs.
So you are against a free market. Instead of multiple shops you want one megastore.
Only one webshop: Amazon
Only one Social Network: Facebook
Only one search engine: Google
Only one OS: Windows
Only one chip manufacturer: Intel
Sure you can, but that's like saying I am for freedom of speech as long I have something to say and against it if I haven't.
Others will follow Apples lead and walled gardens will spread.
The whole internet and computer thing becomes more and more like an oligarchy and we are the peasants who must choose with lord we follow. Apple-shire, Google-shire, Facebook-shire.
They built their own ecosystems with iOS, Android, Oculus and totally controll it and if we don't "behave" we get locked out.
Yep, this is exactly where I'm at. Opening up the AppStore is a slippery slope to having 3rd party stores rife with apps that abuse private APIs and go well beyond the gated access to the iOS sandbox that the SDK provides.
Note that Apple wouldn't be just be forced to loosen some restrictions to match Google Play and Android, they'd have to go far further. Google Play is also being sued. Its not as dramatic or fun to cover it that way, but I feel like news orgs could be doing a lot better here.
Android is already a mess with multiple stores and loose, to put it mildly, standards for the quality of apps. And that still isn't enough for Epic. I don't want my iPhone turning into an Android (I did have many choices, and I chose iPhone) and I __definitely__ don't want it turning to an even less regulated ecosystem than what we already have with Android.
I don't really care if developers are happy, because so many of them have interests hostile to mine. Apple is fortunately big enough to be able to force folks like Facebook and Uber to play by the rules. They're also big enough to force developers to play ball with things like iPad support or get booted from the store. The cost of targeting iPad is less than the cost of e.g. Twitter losing their spot on iPhones, so now iPad has a great Twitter app where it didn't before.
Edit: forgot to mention how Apple's subscription management process is far, far superior to any other device. I explicitly choose to subscribe through Apple because I know I will be notified before renewal and that I can cancel easily. I know the scale of the iPhone market, combined with Apple's restrictions, are the only reason I have that choice.
People paint this whole situation as Epic fighting for the consumer, but really Epic is fighting for the interests of Epic alone. I know Android users don't get it becuase they may not have experienced it, but really Apple is adding loads of value here and taking that value away isn't automatically pro-consumer, even if associated with words like 'freedom' and 'competition'.
Edit: Another perspective on this is that as a developer who writes software for Android and iOS, iOS is a far, far superior experience. Things work more reliably, testing is easier because iOS is an OS whereas Android is really a family of operating systems - see how much things can change on Pixel vs Galaxy. Things are getting better over time especially with AndroidX and Jetpack, but the developer experience is still loads better on iOS.
If you're referring to developer as 'individual who writes software for iOS' Apple is far superior. If you're thinking of developer as 'financial entity that profits off software' then the 30% cut becomes more painful, but Apple justifies that by having a premium offering with customers who spend more on apps.
the setup to your question is flawed, since you're starting from the perspective that someone should be on one side or the other. Epic is suing on multiple points, and there are probably very few people that agree with Epic on every point.
iOS is widely regarded as being the safest consumer OS in widespread usage on the market today. Much of that is because of the restrictions that apple places on developers ability to install arbitrary code on the user's device. Epic is suing for the ability to create an app store that would allow third-party developers to install arbitrary binaries on iOS devices without oversight from Apple.
that level of restriction is a part of the product. It's what people are paying for when they buy an iOS device. People actually want that. And there's no reason why there shouldn't be an option for consumers to pick a locked-down platform. Many developers are hostile to users, and many users consciously want a device that makes that hostility harder for developers.
The 30% take that Apple charges is steep and is replicated by basically all other vendors, so I'd be happy to see that reduced since it improves all ecosystems. But the app approval process and the single app store ecosystem is a thing that I think differentiates iOS, and I wouldn't want to see that changed.
fwiw, I have an Android phone, which I picked because I wanted to use Daydream. I never really use that, so my next phone will probably be an iPhone.
IANAL and I cannot judge the legal merits of this case.
I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices.
A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%.
Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.
> Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%
What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?
They have exceptions for few kind of products and this is exactly where Apple policy become some controversial. Since they also allow video streaming, but banned game streaming apps.
> What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?
As far as I understand this is something Google was specifically allowed to do because their nature as streaming service. E.g most of companies are not allowed to sell subscription or app options for 30% extra on iOS and make it possible to pay for them on their own website for normal price.
1,536 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 433 ms ] threadSorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money on tiny cellphone games.
My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.
Apps have no basis to deceive children into spending money. Most of their practices are outright illegal depending on the jurisdiction (latin Europe), shouldn't have mercy on them.
When all the payments are forced to go through a trusted processor with correct parental controls for all apps in the platform, you guarantee that your kid will not make any uninformed purchases.
The thing about fraud is, if you do not stop it completely, it grows exponentially.
I am alright with cosmetic microtransactions, but I think "loot boxes" should be relegated to rewards for play. Microtransactions should be to buy specific items... but leave loot boxes as a way to get random ones for free through normal play.
So those are irrelevant anyway?
What’s the alternative? I’m in love with the micro transactions model because the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or high upfront fees.
On the games I play I rarely buy anything, don’t see ads but their business is healthy and the games are fantastic and regularly updated with new content.
I casually play Asphalt 9, SimCity BuildIt and PUBG, probably have hundreds if not thousands of hours on each and spent probably less than $20 till now. If that’s not a great deal, I don’t know what is.
I also bought games like Monument Valley or Limbo and similar. While the experience is also top notch, the upfront payment feels steep and the developers don’t update the games so the play time is considerably less.
Where do you think the money comes from, then? Ultimately, your `fantastic' experience comes at the cost of innumerable singular sites of suffering from the children and addicts _who do_ buy them.
Some people taking the tab for the rest isn’t new. Some people have more money than sense, that’s alright.
These games are high quality entertainment, if some people want to spend money on them, that’s not a bad thing.
It should he easier to stop children spending money on them but equally I don't mind adults spending their money on new things. A new Fortnite skin or dance etc. does have a cost to produce (I am not in favour of PTW-style microtransactions though)
My experience is exactly the opposite. IAPs encourage developers to make the default experience sufficiently broken (e.g. requiring absurd amounts of grinding) so that you'll pay to fix it.
Because these games are multiplayer, you peer with people that are also not high spenders(mostly).
In Asphalt 9, for example It’s not realistic fir me to unlock some cars by free playing but I would not say that the experience is broken, Years later I still enjoy a few races every day because they introduce new items and gaming modes almost monthly.
Heck, I never put in mine, I am perfectly fine with free apps that cover vast array of my usage. I don't game on the phone though. If my kids won't either, I can call it a small victory in parenting. If they will, either they earn the money themselves, receive gift (not from me that's for sure), or they will have to suffer subpar free-to-play variant of the game. Still a win.
I know, peer pressure and all that, but what happened to proper parenting and guiding children a bit through life?
Again, I don't have a kid nor spend a single dollar on these apps. As a developer of other kinds of software I can see the dark patterns and psychological games in these apps and it is pure evil.
Anecdotally, I think a single purchase can also eliminate a feedback mechanism from the players to the designers, in some scenarios.
I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but come on. Being featured is important, it’s a big deal and it can make a serious difference to any developer’s income and notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the top of the list because they’re in a bad mood really says something about Apple: I don’t know, maybe that they’re a bit isolated and immature about this whole thing?
The message that young preteens and teens are hearing is "iPhones and iPads are wack because they don't have the cool game". They don't care about the cost of v-bucks and who gets what percentage of the money. They just care that they can't play a game but their friend at school who has an Android can.
Apple has to feature PUBG because they have to show their customers that they still have cool games to play. Otherwise they run the risk of killing their iPhone gaming market just like they did the Mac gaming market. When you think desktop gaming its pretty likely that you think Windows first, because Mac has a really weak selection of games and many of the biggest titles are Windows only.
That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid happening to iOS as well.
It took a court order to not cut off Epic's developer liscence, which affects many other game vendors too.
That doesn't sound desparate. That sounds balsy and arrogant, and considering the attitude of Epic somewhat called for. It's almost like the gaming market on iOS is a only small percentage of all the money Apple makes. We are talking about a lot of money that Epic looses to them, but the same is not true in reverse.
Apple will stick to its guns even if the whole gaming industry would boycot them. They don't seem to care, and i can understand why they don't. Mobile games is a very profitable market, but one that makes money irregardless of quality. Angry Birds will do for Apple. The assumption that exclusive titles are platform drivers for mobile phones is false.
My point being that if PUBG is much more popular that Fortnite on iOS it would only be natural that Apple would want to promote it. I have no idea if that's the case though.
[1] https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...
What's noteworthy here is that it's not a preliminary injunction, meaning that Apple might not even have had the chance to defend themselves in court yet.
It's literally a court order forcing them to not do things that they said they were going to do
A new court order will be issued in the future, but for at least the next month this is the state of things.
> meaning that Apple might not even have had the chance to defend themselves in court yet.
The hearing was literally livestreamed on zoom and (illegally I might add) on youtube.
https://www.pubgmobile.com/en/event/erangel
Apple is just promoting an update for a popular game, around the time it’s going to be updated.
[1] https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Aappstore%20pubgmobile&sr...
"While waiting for Apple to #FreeFortnite on iOS and Mac, here’s another awesome battle royale game powered by Unreal Engine!"
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/129941176668281651...
OTOH I think it is outrageous that breaking the rules from the iOS App Store now bans you from even having an Apple dev account. Unless I'm mistaken, without an Apple dev account you can't even sign a macOS app (different from notarization).
I'm so glad I decided to not make any new projects for an Apple platform.
I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store, and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And same with all of my future free software - it will never intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes their ways.
This is the opposite of a backhanded complement. The market for your parents is orders of magnitudes greater than the market for developers and technologists.
If I write OS-agnostic mobile apps for fun, and my apps can be downloaded for Android easily, but cannot be downloaded for iOS, guess which device I'll be recommending to my "parents", friends and internet strangers?
This point above is more of a “save your breath” suggestion as tech savvy people would much more likely be interested in this trade off when considering a which device type to purchase.
This option is present in Android. And you can use it at any time. Is it often that the option is used? Absolutely not, I've never even used it myself. But I still think it's great that it's available, and, if need be, I can easily install any app I want from any source, even if Google doesn't approve of such app or such source.
Not rooting for Apple, but the pretentiousness in the “I’m not a charity” part seemed far removed from the humbleness required to be unintentionally illiterate.
You also have to buy Apple hardware to build and test their software. That would be at least an iphone and a macbook air. The wallet garden extends to developers as well.
I'm launching an app and I have no desire to buy hardware that treats me like I'm too dumb to be able to install software from whatever source I want.
So Apple will be ignored and that's gonna be a net win on sanity and time to polish the product for Android.
It’s not like their lawsuit wouldn’t continue if they put Fortnite back in the App Store.
One: Epic Games is 40% owned by Tencent.[1] I'll reserve my opinion here an suggest others use this as a point of discussion to explore what we believe this might mean.
Two: Media attention is everything in the court of public opinion.
1. Tencent Holdings Ltd is a Chinese multinational conglomerate holding company, founded in 1998, <snip> the world's largest video game company, one of the world's most financially valuable companies, one of the world's largest social media companies, and one of the world's largest venture capital firms and investment corporations.
China has somewhere in the vicinity of ~250 nuclear warheads.
Your move.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store’s guidelines and policies while the case is in progress – the rules they followed over the past ten years until they created the current situation themselves. Epic refused.
Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want. No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
your cynical take is often very true but there are sometimes real human ideals behind things.
Also, the PC is an open platform. Game developers don't have to use Epic's or anyone else' store to distribute games on PC. With iOS you have no choice.
Epic recently raised $1.78 billion dollars in capital. how do you think they intend to deliver a return on such a massive investment?
anyone paying attention to their moves sees this as what it is. Epic wants to be the exclusive destination to build, buy and play video games.
they're fighting Apple because they beat them to the punch. this is not some idealistic martyrdom. it's multi-billion dollar company fights multi-trillion dollar company for market share.
It definitely is - one store, Epic, offers deals publishers can't refuse to make a game exclusive to their storefront which limits a consumer's ability to use a platform of their choice to purchase a game. The other, steam, puts no limits on where you can distribute your game (unless you use assets from Valve's own games, but I digress) and has done no exclusivity deals that would force a game to only use their store. Publishers are free to use steam if they want to have 30% taken, but otherwise they can completely forego steam in their distribution.
Epic is at least bringing the joy of console exclusives to the desktop. Innovative!
> a recent financial report suggested that Epic paid over $10 million to get Control as an Epic Game Store exclusive on PC, and it's possible the company has done the same to snag some of the more important releases of the year.
A little hard to turn down 10 million.
What if the game would have made $20m if it was non-exclusive?
Exclusivity deals mean both parties - or either party - is making a huge risk or there's information-asymmetry involved.
The colloquial definition of an "offer you can't refuse" is one that would be a bad deal for you, but that you have to accept anyway because otherwise the counterparty would do something even worse to you.
The Epic Store is free (as in beer) to create an account on, and there's no hardware lock-in -- Steam, the Epic Store, and other platforms like GOG Galaxy/itch.io/whatever Ubisoft has can all be run on the same computer at the same time. The situation is completely different from Apple's app store.
The way you frame it is totally incorrect and completely misrepresents
Steam (who is obviously relevant in the PC space) doesn't "charge" developers 30% of the revenue. Steam is acting as an affiliate. Affiliate agreements work on the fact that one party will get a commission for driving sales of a particular product.
Steam drives sales of a particular product by providing the market place, they provide the payment mechanism, the hosting and update infrastructure and probably a bunch of things I am not aware of.
Also the 30/70% split for an affiliate relationship is standard across many industries. This could be Travel, Gambling, House hold items.
> Also, the PC is an open platform. Game developers don't have to use Epic's or anyone else' store to distribute games on PC. With iOS you have no choice.
You are getting wrong way around. If would be fine if the EPIC store offered the same games as Steam at a lower price (by taking a lower commission). Then that would drive competition and that would benefit the consumer.
However that isn't happening here.
They are artificially dividing an open market by making some PC games exclusive to their store. This stops competition because the two store fronts can't compete because they cannot offer the same games. In the same way that if you wanna play Halo you aren't doing it on a PlayStation.
GoG and Steam will have many of the same games sold on them. I end up buying them on the GoG store, why is that? GoG is guaranteed to be DRM free. That choice cannot exist when some games are exclusive to one store. So GoG competes with the Steam store and offers a better refund policy (you can refund for any reason and at any time) and no DRM.
Now it may benefit developers to be exclusive to the EPIC store but this will ultimately make the PC ecosystem less open for the consumer.
People have to remember perfect is the enemy of the good. Considering Steam's position in the market they don't seem to abuse their position. Anecdotally I know people that have developed indie games and they told me they are generally quite happy with Steam.
We are talking about stores acting as if they are publishers (because with a exclusivity deal that is what is really happening). Steam is a open market place for all intents and purposes.
If Epic is successful we will have every store front acting as a publisher. This won't benefit the consumer (publisher tend to interfere with the creative process) and it won't benefit the developers because those low commission rates will suddenly vanish.
I am all for free markets. But this is not what is happening here. EPIC is flush with cash from Fortnight and dominating the game engine market with UE3, UE4 and probably do the same with UE5 (they have over 25% in a very fragmented market) and they are trying to artificially divide what is an open ecosystem.
In general I think that "they have special rules for their own stuff" weakens the argument.
Anyway this is distraction from the general point I was trying to convey that store specific exclusives doesn't promote competition, it actually retards it.
If Epic had a store and just offered the same games for cheaper. I would be fine with it.
Also everyone keeps pretending that EPIC is this tiny company when nothing could be further from the truth.
This sounds suspiciously like Amazon's KDP Select[1]:
Q. What does it mean to publish exclusively on Kindle?
A. When you choose to enroll your book in KDP Select, you're committing to make the digital format of that book available exclusively through KDP. During the period of exclusivity, you cannot distribute your book digitally anywhere else, including on your website, blogs, etc.
... I really don't like Amazon when it comes to the demands they make for publishing books through their platform. I am no lawyer, but the whole system reeks of wrongness. I publish a few books on KDP, but none have been enrolled in KDP Select - why should I give up Google Play, iBooks and a whole host of other distribution channels just to please the owners of the biggest distribution platform of them all?
[1] https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/select
So developer can't sell game on Steam for $60 and at the same time sell it on Epic Games Store for $50 due to lower commission. So Epic don't have any other tools to compete with Steam.
Total War: Troy is exclusive to Epic Games Store for one year before it comes to Steam. If you got the game on its release date, Epic gave it to you for free. To play it, you need one more launcher to go along with Steam, Battle.net, GOG, and various custom launchers. What is the harm being done here?
I like Steam, but I doubt that it will be good in the long term for it to be completely dominant. It needs a solid competitor.
Also Epic may control the release in some ways. For example, Civ 6 on Epic is PC only but on Steam it’s PC & Mac. So I bought it on Epic and then realized I can’t play with my friends who are on Macs.
Why would I want an entire new game store, an app that they’ve chosen to make incompatible with one of the two major computing platforms, and yet another thing to keep updated, minimized, and logged into.
I’m all for competition but exclusivity deals are overall negative for the consumer. It’s worth $10 million to get a new game exclusively for Epic to force everyone to use a store they don’t want to install or use because they’ll end up spending $100 million on other games. It’s an effective business tactic but it’s not exactly in my interest.
I'd say the choice of launchers and stores is fine. Especially with tools like GOG Galaxy which can aggregate them too.
Would consumers prefer paying 30% more for games to stay on the most dominate launcher/store?
Steam exclusivity for games like Portal 2 is forever. Of course, Portal 2 was a sequel to a game created by a studio that Valve simply bought outright.
It would be a good thing if Half-Life Alyx came out on other PC game stores, in exactly the same way that it would be a good thing if a game like Control came out on other PC game stores. Our expectations are socially constructed and we should question them more.
With so many different stores to download apps, it gets increasingly unlikely anyone is going to take the time to cross list on all of them.
If we wanted to change how this worked, I feel like we’d need to consolidate on fewer marketplaces. For example, apt-get has access to a huge variety of packages so I don’t find myself using the Ubuntu App Store or random third party marketplaces as much as I do with games.
Fun fact: Brick and mortar retailers spam the checkout lane with gift cards because they do not pay face value for them.
Isn't that also a net negative for the consumer? The fact that a game dev cant charge $8.20 on Epic vs $10 on Steam or else Valve will ban their game?
This is why when you go to buy an Apple laptop or a GoPro or whatever on Amazon that they can’t initially show you a price below the price allowed by the manufacturer. You’ll sometimes need to add the item to your cart to see the “discounted” price which is still allowed under Minimum Advertised Price rules. Cars and many, many other products work this way too.
Once again, not saying I’m necessarily in favor of it but it’s hardly a unique Steam policy. Brands seem to believe protecting their advertised prices helps maintain the value of their brand. For Steam, I guess they wouldn’t want to have a store full of games that cost more. Just like no one wants to pay 30% more to buy a game on iOS instead of PC.
edit: there's a good analogy in another thread -- only being able to buy a Nintendo game at GameStop and not Best Buy.
At the same time, nobody really cared about Nintendo making Bayonetta 2.
I think the problem is with taking away something that was already available or announced to be coming, and people have less problems with funding new things with strings attached.
If they gonna win in battle with Apple and will be allowed to have their own store then it's also make it possible to setup more of alternative stores for e.g open source software without waiting for jailbreak.
(clang and llvm are also open by choice)
I do like the fact that we now have two competing compilers and llvm brought a lot of innovation, but everyone know that only reason Apple invested in these projects is to avoid GPLv3.
And yeah at the same time Apple's locked platform and Webkit-only policy saves us from Chromium monopoly over the web and helps Firefox live. So yeah world is not just abstract "good and evil" obviously.
So if that's the only reason, then why did Apple hire Lattner to work on llvm in 2005 (two years prior to gcc's switch to v3)?
Surely it would have been easier to just fork one of the GPLv2 releases from 2007 or earlier.
Also GPLv3 was officially announced in 2005. It's was just matter of time before all GNU projects switch to new license version. And it was certainly.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/gpl-3-may-tackle-web-loophole/
Oh and there was plans to release GPLv3 even earlier in 2004 and it's was known that it's will include patents grant. This was obviously absolutely unacceptable for Apple:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/look-for-a-new-gpl-in-2005/
Also Valve didnt start to use open source packaging software and haven't even made their own game engine source-available let alone open source. Yes it's nice they improving Linux graphics stack, but they also could do much more.
Like really I dont use Epic Games Store to buy anything neither I support the way they try to capture market share. But any attacks on locked down platforms is a good thing for FOSS.
But in their attacks on Walled Garden - 100% behind them for that.
The answer to that question on iOS is a "strong no", on Android it's a "yes, but". On PC that answer is yes regardless if the actions of Epic Store.
Put another way, in real life any legal product should be feasible to sell/buy as long as there's corresponding supply/demand to make it work. No one should force Target to sell things they don't want to sell, but it shouldn't be allowed for Target to use some leverage to block any other stores from opening in driving distance of your house.
I get that, but I admit to finding it hard to square with his statements[1] that he is fine with game consoles not being open. Seems a strange dichotomy.
[1]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oglnAi...
[1]: hard to image game consoles being sold at a loss if they couldn't make it up in fees on the other side.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/30/sony-posts-2-1b-profit-as-...
If that isn't the case, then it makes Sweeny's statement above seem even stranger.
Ps4 pro was profitable from day one.
- Android is clearly more open than iOS, but Epic is also suing Google. So is this really about sideloading? From that suit, it sure doesn't sound like it.
- When you do sideload Fortnite on your Android device, from what I understand, you can't actually sideload Fortnite directly. Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games Store!
It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store. And while I'm not much of a gamer, the stories I recall about Epic's store in the press... well, we'll just say they didn't have a "so ideals! much open!" vibe to them.
I think there's a lot of valid criticisms to be made about both the "app console" model that Apple is steadfastly pushing and the specific ways in which they're running the App Store, but I am skeptical that Epic is the general this particular battle needs.
No company smaller than Epic could afford to file such a case. I wonder whether any company could become large enough without having some way for people to argue that "it is not the general this particular battle needs".
I'm not saying Epic is a bad poster child for this case because Epic is a sleazy company (although from all accounts they kind of are); I'm saying they're a bad poster child because their battle is running up a steeper grade.
Are they arguing that Apple's policies make it impossible for them to split money with authors at the same rate on ebooks? No. How about the policies making it impossible for them to give 100% of event ticket sales to their users and impossible for them to even tell users they'll make less money when people buy tickets on iOS? Nope. Maybe they make it impossible for them to put a client for a streaming game service, period, full-stop, even if Apple got a cut of the money? Negatory.
What does Apple's policies make it impossible for Epic to do, then? Get a higher cut of the revenue from Fortnite's game currency when it's bought on iOS. That's what got their developer account terminated. This is the stand they're taking, the flag they have planted, the hill they are ready to die on: that 70% gross profit on zero marginal cost virtual tchotchkes isn't enough.[1]
Maybe this case will be successful, but my suspicion is that if Apple changes their position, it's going to be either due to regulatory pressure or the ever-increasing weight of the rolling PR disaster they're getting themselves into.
[1] Edited to add: As I wrote, I think it's ultimately about them wanting Apple to be forced to allow the Epic Games Store to be installed on iOS through the Apple App Store, but the case they're bringing is still about Fortnite.
And Apple doesn’t “deserve” anything anymore than any company deserve anything. Apple built the iOS and iPhone platform, so they can charge based on that.
> ...lower cuts could result in lower prices
I’m not confident that if Apple stopped taking a cut that companies would lower prices.
As for your second point, fair, but at least then we could blame them for being money hungry.
If you want users to see the app you also have to use the iOS system on iPhone. You have to rely on Apple to build GPUs to process your game effectively. Why is the App Store treated so specially?
If you want to charge people to use your platform there are other methods, e.g. developer licenses.
Your initial comment doesn't change my point, just moves the goal post. If I want to deliver no IPhones, I'm stuck with the system. And you can make the same argument for the Play Store.
I don't think PC/XBox quite fit in the same ball-park. The engagement model is very different on those compared to mobile devices. Which is why video games still cost 60$ but most people won't pay more than a couple of dollars for an app.
I don't think that's the real disagreement we're having though. I think the misalignment is on whether 30% fees are acceptable or not.
That's the (literally) billion dollar question, right? Just with a bunch of other questions embedded in it: even if a 30% cut was okay in 2007, is it still in 2020? Aren't there a whole lot of different kinds of in-app purchases? What about subscriptions? Even if you still buy Apple's argument that the App Store isn't just a payment processor and should get more of a cut because of that, aren't there clear cases of in-app purchases where they literally are just a payment processor? I'm skeptical of the strength of Epic's particular case, but I definitely don't want to come across like I think Apple has been showering themselves in glory here. :)
In business it never was a case, and why should it be?
I remember when Valve did that with HL2 and Steam. The outrage was similar [1]. Look how it turned out for Valve.
[1] https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-life-...
Valve was not fighting an existing store using "stores are bad" as an argument, only to introduce another store. Which is exactly what Epic is doing here.
In retrospect, it seems to have worked out pretty well for the company and its customers. Gabe Newell has proven to be a more benevolent dictator than his counterparts at Apple and Microsoft.
No. You are not arguing in good faith.
There are many levels to compete with Apple on, since they have decided to entrench themselves on every level. Epic is not competing with Apple on an Apple basis, where Apple doesn't want to allow a specific type of app (e.g. a browser with a different engine), they are competing with the App Store (which is how Apple ensures their App level advantage, and that you can't ship your own browser engine).
> It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store.
Whether from those stores or not, they want it to have a level playing field on the device. Apple doesn't allow that through not allowing the store on the device at all. Google restricts it by pushing a lot of the phone functionality through the Play store now.
Amazon has a store for Android too. Interesting how Google split a bunch of essential services away from the OS and into the Play services which are updated and handled through the Play store when that happened.
It makes perfect sense for Epic to go after both Google and Apple. Both restrict alternative marketplaces on their devices through anti-competitive behavior, even if their methods are entirely different.
To be clear, you can't ship your own JIT, including a Javascript runtime, because Apple does not give TestFlight or App Store distributed apps the ability to mark memory pages executable.
iOS supports two different app platforms, native apps via the App Store and HTML/Javascript/WebAssembly via Safari. One reason Safari exploits work is that the sandboxing and entitlements for Safari (and the WebKit/JavaScriptCore processes) are different from any other app.
Last I heard you couldn't ship any interpreted language on iOS, and this was the big reason given why you can't have your own browser (and many other types of apps that could benefit from some scripting interface).
But that's just one example anyway, and somewhat besides the point. I have no problem with Apple running their App Store and restricting what apps are allowed on it. I do have a problem with the App Store being the only trusted source for installing software and managing updates. It's one more link in the chain that makes any real competition on in the iPhone ecosystem beholden entirely to Apple's wishes.
Also Epic’s filled surprisingly readable lawsuits, covering your points and more.
> from that suit
Google’s lawsuit is a different one, with specific arguments. It includes for instance Google blocking makers from directly pre-installing Fortnite on devices, which would be bypassing the Store altogether.
> Epic Game Store
Not related to the lawsuits, but an issue with straight side-loading was how to auto-update the game itself (not just the content). For that you need a mechanism, I’d expect the Epic Store to be it.
It seems in brand to care more about the legal argument and its ramifications for Apple than bickering if Epic is being “unsincere”.
Even so, I actually think it would be good for Apple if they stopped insisting on being the exclusive funnel for all iOS applications, too. Yes, it would mean a certain amount of lost services revenue, but in addition to avoiding PR fiascos and regulatory interventions, it takes a certain amount of pressure off their reviewers -- and might let some really interesting niche applications bloom.
Apple is still trying to deal with that and doesn't really have a solution, and it only adds to the numerous inconsistent practices with the App Store.
Google is equally as responsible for anticompetitive behavior with their exclusive agreements with OEMs, and the fact that they've limited Android in such a way that third party app stores will never have feature parity with the Play Store.
If you distribute an app outside of the Play Store, there is no way to automatically upgrade it, upgrade or install it in the background or include in a batch of updates.
That said, you're right that he's consistent with these views, especially how he was against UWP during its heyday. [1]
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-04-tim-sweene...
Tim Sweeney is thinking years ahead of most other people. In the case of Google and Apple, I suspect what he is actually concerned about is these two companies have control over a VR/AR/XR "metaverse" platform. There are hours of audio and transcripts about him talking about this as well.
https://blog.siggraph.org/2019/10/siggraph-spotlight-episode...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6ClJxjuRvw
An upvote didn’t seem like enough, that is a devastatingly accurate appraisal IMO
Are we watching a cold war unfold in front of our eyes?
People making up the government are not gonna ban their phones (or their son's and daughter's iPhones, considering the 70 year old politicians might not be strong users of smartphone themselves).
At the expense of the users, in both the figurative and the literal sense of the word.
And if Apple doesn't bend, we need antitrust action against these monopolies anyways.
They will never let it go far enough to truly threaten their walled garden.
But then who isn't going to want to take their place and get their own "special deal"?
> Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist.
So no, a judge hasn’t suggested there is a winnable antitrust case here but he has acknowledged there are serious questions regarding unfair competition.
Unless you can find another court document that does specifically mention the individual claims and states the word “monopoly”? The only references I can find is tabloid-level journalism covering the story (ie using vague summaries with common language rather than legal jargon accurately). If you can I’ll happily accept that the “monopoly” point is at least currently under legal dispute. But I can’t find any evidence to support that claim.
> Apple conditions app developers’ access to app distribution through the App Store on their agreement to use Apple’s IAP to process all their customers’ in-app purchases of in-app content ... Epic is likely to prove that this conduct is: (a) tying per se; (b) an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason; (c) unlawful maintenance of a monopoly under Section 2; and (d) a denial of access to an essential facility under Section 2.
I agree what we have is a duopoly.
Im a user, and it will be very bad for my security and privacy of my data.
I 100% believe that 3rd party app stores is a hill Apple is willing to die on. I would guess they're more likely to get rid of "apps" entirely than open up their ecosystem.
You believe they'd rather give up the iPhone than compromise on a more consumer-friendly ecosystem policy?
I'd wager most App Store apps on the iPhone could be ported-over to PWA and retain 90% of their functionality - and people would still buy the iPhone.
Looking at my Settings > Screen Time history for the past week, these are the apps I use the most (in no particular order) and how I feel they would work as a PWA:
1. Microsoft iOS Remote Desktop Client: this could be a PWA with a WebSocket+<canvas>-based interaction surface.
2. Twitter: there's nothing I use in the iOS native app that can't be done in their web-app.
3. Google Maps: I think I'd be okay if I had to use the built-in Apple Maps instead.
4. Telegram / WhatsApp / Slack etc: Apps like these can't be used offline anyway, so being PWAs web-apps is also fine. As Slack is an Electron App (on Windows at least) then porting it over to a PWA is straightforward.
5. Authy / Google Authenticator / Azure Authenticator: I'll admit this is one that can't be done properly as a PWA right now because there's no way to reliably and securely persist client-side secrets.
6. Star Walk: this is one that can't be PWA: while the 3D world can be rendered in a WebGL <canvas>, it needs a large offline data cache and PWAs can only store 50MB presently (and that's 50MB as text, not binary data).
Most of the other apps I use are Apple's own or built-in to the device (iWork, Notes, Camera, iMessage, Mail, etc).
As for games: I stopped buying and installing iOS games on my phone and iPad a few years ago because there's no way to reliably download and "keep" games and apps you've bought indefinitely (e.g. as IPA files). Once a publisher removes an app or game from the App Store and you've removed it from your phone then you're SOL - you will get a refund if you contact iTunes Customer Support, but I view games as art - and the idea for a games publisher to unilaterally prevent me from accessing content I've paid for is horrible and reeks of Orwell's Memory Hole.
(Besides games-as-art that I've bought... and lost, the only other types of games I see in the stores are crass freemium bollocks - and I won't let myself get hooked on that business model).
(I think the last game I ever got from the App Store was "Rainbrow" ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/rainbrow/id1312458558 ) - which was an experimental game using the then-new iPhone X's face detection camera where you move a character on-screen using your eyebrows - that was almost 3 years ago).
If Apple decides to arbitrarily disable some functionality in PWAs but not in-app WebViews then they're going to have a hard-time defending that, as all new web-standards specifications are built around privacy in-mind (as that seems to be Apple's overriding reason for not implementing some web-standard specification that benefits PWAs).
But PWAs aren't really suitable for Unreal Engine because of Apple's 50MB size-limit.
Just like any other cost, more often than not these costs are just passed on to the customer.
I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support companies when their policy advances my interests.
A valid opinion is that those rules are illegal under current federal statue. Another one is that although they currently aren't, they should be.
> Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
It's a surprise because typically these departments have a much larger incentive to settle, and not to create new case law. It's giant news because of the potential impact to many individuals and to the industry as a whole.
That's not right. Civil tort suits are for any citizens to seek justice for themselves.
If you think about it it's not really valid.
Retailers take a big cut of the price to sell your product and its legal.
The rules were defined many years ago, and its a free world - don't like it - don't buy it.
Why would it be illegal?
The court shouldn't be able to change business models that you don't like.
This whole “Apple have a monopoly inside their own product” is an absurd line of questioning when their product has anything but a monopoly. This argument is akin to saying that Disney has a monopoly on hotdog sales inside Disneyland and should be forced to allow competitors to open hotdog stands inside Disneyland.
Didn't MS get into trouble for the exact same reasons, they were using their monopoly in the OS market to force Netscape out of business.
I dont think that is the point, Apple has 100% market share on its devices and its using its dominant position in that market to make that market anticompetitive (as per Epic)
Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs
No, it's exactly the point and was the catalyst for my comment. Apple sells a product. If you don't like it, buy something else. The only time that doesn't hold up is when there are not any practical alternatives (a la Windows) and thus the product (perhaps) satisfies the conditions for a monopoly.
> Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs
And? They're completely free to do this.
I guess its upto the judge to decide that now whether they are abusing their dominant position or not.
> And? They're completely free to do this.
But then why lie about it, Cook said they have the same rules for everyone but then its revealed that they have secret deals with some others.
> MSFT had a monopoly outside of their own product. This is my point. Windows had essentially 100% market share, whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.
I am not renting my phone from Apple, I own it. So when I am buying an instance of Disneyland, being able to install my own hotdog stands is a perfectly reasonable expectation.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071615/what-profit-...
Just like selling on Apple marketplace.
The problem is not the fee that the App Store imposes to you. The problem is that you don't have an alternative, either you accept the fee that Apple imposes to you or iPhone users have no way to use your software (beside jailbreak). And since cutting out iPhone users is unacceptable for all companies you either have to accept the Apple policy or respond to thusands of angry customers that asks why the app is only available for Android or the iPhone version of the app has not all the feature of the Android one (since the final user usually don't know that there are these restriction in place).
On Android if you don't agree with the Google Play policy you can simply let the user download the apk from your website and install it manually on your phone. Granted, you loose the visibility that you have on the Play Store and you have to implement updates and push notifications manually without relying on the Play Service.
Or you can choose of distribuiting your software trough an alternative App Store, that the user can install on its phone like any other application.
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a case to the European Union, which seems to have a knack for pursuing this kind of thing. A ruling over there wouldn't directly impact the rest of the world, but it could get the ball rolling.
Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of this whole issue to try to rally customers to their cause. For that, I have no sympathy. Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. And it's not by Apple.
I agree that the App store cut is too high. But this is not the way to go about things.
No, I don't believe they could. The courts in common law jurisdictions generally don't rule on speculative harm, they require an active controversy to rule on.
The larger topic of which this is a part is something called "standing." Lack of standing is quite a common reason for a court to deny hearing a case. Not only does there have to be a harm, the party suing has to be the party that suffered the harm. So you also cannot sue on behalf of others.
This is the reason for the initial actions Epic took. Tim Sweeney has been chomping at the bit for this sort of suit for years. But they needed a harm to use as the locus for a suit. There has certainly been a big PR campaign surrounding it to try to sway public opinion to Epic's side, but the action itself was necessary.
Probably not. Part of the reason Apple has prevailed in the past is the lack of direct consumer arm from their actions. By offering the discounted rate it's no longer disputable that Apple's actions harm the consumer.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
Just because Epic stands to make an extra buck or two doesn't mean that their incentives are not aligned with small developers and consumers in this particular moment.
Is it not a valid response to Apple finding a violation to just say: "OK, then we just won't try to put it back up"?
I don't think they want special treatment. I think they want the rules to change.
They are not asking for special treatment.
They are asking for the courts to curtail Apple's absolute power over how applications can be installed on an operating system designed for general computing.
That would be a game changer for the entire developer ecosystem.
Whether that's good or bad is another debate, but the industry-shifting impact it could have is undeniable.
This kind of thing didn't exist before because it was impossible to make people follow the rules, and it's pretty costly to maintain, given that Apple has to vet all the software, host all the content, and do that across hundreds of jurisdictions with various local rules.
Before Apple there was no way any of this could happen, Google followed suit only because it looked so profitable, and they could afford to bite the losses for as long as it took to prop up their smartphone.
So, yeah, it would shake the industry to the core, just not the way most of the people begging for it think it would.
It is called a built-in feature and iPhones were designed with it from the very start.
It was also marketed accordingly.
Apple could easily make the case that the platform was never designed for general computing. It was never an open platform, and what Epic is asking is for the government to 'compel speech' from Apple in the form of changes to their product in order to make it one.
If you steal an candy bar, the government can "compel speech" in the form of forcing you to return the stolen property.
This is a great example of a thing that is not remotely 'compelled speech.' Here's the wiki article on the topic[1]. There's a pretty high bar for the government to create exceptions to the First Amendment.
A better example of compelled speech is the FBI trying to require Apple to write software that would give police a backdoor into any iPhone user's phone[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#United_States
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/what-we-talk-about-whe...
this is pretty dismissive considering Apple is messing with every developers on their platform and their known not to give special treatment.
I'm stepping out on a limb and saying Apple is going to end up settling with Epic so they don't have to host competing App Stores.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
How are they acting the same?
> There are no fees to apply to ID@Xbox, to submit a game to certification, publish, or update your games. There is a very modest one-time cost associated with development for the Universal Windows Platform.
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id
It looks like the big costs are insurance and the ratings boards (but this post is 6 years old):
https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-game...
You still need to pay for ESRB ratings and other things.
The SDKs that are available for this program are also heavily limited it’s basically only for UWP compatible apps, and while they didn’t put it yet it looks like there will be further limitations down the line including ensuring full cross platform compatibility including with IOS and Android.
So yes if you build a game using their more limited SDK and implement all Xbox Live features they won’t take a fee other than dev account fees.
And we aren’t talking about indie devs we’re talking about fucking Epic Games.
I don't think it is too hard to make a regular game UWP compatible. Unity just lets you do that.
I won’t be surprised if Microsoft has some clauses with their publishers not to have a game for cheaper on competing platforms.
edit: this used to be the case, it's possible this has changed and I didn't know it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24311230
You’re thinking of credit card merchant agreements.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24311230
Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.
Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.
How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
Indie devs can publish on Xbox for a token fee (no % of revenue taken).
If Apple takes one of Spotify’s customers then not only do they lose out on the 30% but they’ve just taken on the burden of providing the actual service to the customer. So Apple not only has to make a profit but make more profit than the 30% would have gotten them. And music streaming is a competitive business.
Do you never think how Kroger brand products don’t run into the same issue?
And yet Epic has beef with Apple. So Microsoft must managed their relationship better than Apple has done to make Epic satisfied enough to not pull a stunt like they have with Apple.
This has been a known thing for ages since they introduced it in 2015.
Spotify is currently £9.99/mo, same as 2015.
https://www.spotify.com/uk/premium/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150208012649/https://www.spoti...
Unless you mean on Apple Pay.
I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc).
I love Apple and I love that they are willing to stand up for riffraff that's trying to invade my personal space (consider iPhone literally as the entire life's worth of information vault) by masquerading as a crusader of light and openness.
I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
I also think that 30% share is too low. Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out.
And only high quality apps will make it through the App store.
Well, they have Fortnite to gain...
But seriously, I've lost count of the number of apps I've enjoyed on Androids that were either unavailable or stunted on iOS. Recommending even basic apps like Google Photos to family comes with a long list of caveats like, "oh yeah, it uploads your photos automatically... as long as you open the app manually to do it". It's icing on the cake that they're also taking such a hard stance against game streaming right now, which is IMO going to be a huge market going forward that a lot of people are going to miss out on (or maybe not, since most of the game streaming market is poorer people...).
I guess the argument of dumbed-down phones for the sake of security/privacy is a reasonable one, but why wouldn't people just buy, like, actual dumb phones? Having a premium phone that you don't actually own just seems like an oxymoron to me. I don't "hack" my own phone and I'm certainly no tinkerer, but being able to actually use the apps my friends use and changing the settings I want to change makes my day to day life a little better every time I do have to use my phone.
Opening up what my friends and family can do with their phones seems like it'd have a lot to gain and very little to lose.
Apple's entire business model for decades is about selling hardware and services, not advertisement. And they're doubling down on it.
The alternatives are "open source" masquerators like Ubuntu who had a boatload of Amazon spyware in it.
This is an age old argument about Apple. Last couple of months for Apple has been rough in terms of PR, but I can point you to many many threads about how Apple cares about their users and despite of the "dictator" status, they're a safe bet relative to what other options we have available. It is fashionable during this time to hate on Apple. See @dang's warning at the top of the thread - I've kind of lost hope in HN since it has become too emotional and less objective day by day.
Does a tractor even come close to that level of personal information?
I agree with you and the right to repair movement. It bothers me that comes like John Deere are milking innocent farmers with equipment lockdown. It's the same with industrial robot manufacturers like Fanuc and Kuka. I once had to call Fanuc to add 128 additional registers on the controller for $10k! This is pretty rampant in B2B world and now penetrating the customer space - think about all the subscription services today! You don't own anything.
Phone is a different beast all together.
When it comes to developers, I value my device more than the developer ecosystem. For me, the phone is where I store personal data:
- Contacts - Photos - Notes - Messages / SMS - Health and Fitness
Everything else is secondary to me. So, I could give less of a damn about developers and their ecosystem than the security of the device. If I want to access external service, I use Safari or download an App.
I absolutely do not want Apps to have more control of my device. I am thankful that Apple is the gatekeeper.
I hope people see this - no one outside of HN gives a shit about Developers and I agree with them.
However, it's always there, so, if my favourite Android app gets deleted from the store, I could still install it.
If your favourite iOS app gets deleted by Apple, what choices do you have?
No, Apple's entire business model for decades was about selling hardware.
So-called "services" are a recent development, and IMO not a welcome or pleasant one.
I like Apple's first-party products. I want to buy into that ecosystem. But I never wanted to buy into the ecosystem where Apple is a reseller. I don't want Apple to become Amazon.
They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc).
Honestly I do think Apple has done a great job of device security and I think they could do a lot more with their OS. I don't see why I need an app store to prevent apps from sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, etc -- the OS could protect those from me if that's what Apple wants to do.
> Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
I think something is likely anti-competitive when there is absolutely no market pressure on pricing.
They disallow cloud gaming for the same reason they disallow non-generic screen mirroring. Because people would use it to circumvent the App Store policies. I’m sure it nets them some cash to do this but I’m sure they would be happy to take 30% of the cloud gaming subscription revenue and allow it. Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app?
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand
This is just f.lux. I don’t see Apple banning notes apps in droves. And f.lux ran into the issue of Apple adding the feature and then suddenly f.lux running afoul of “you can’t sell OS functionality” which is a good rule in general. Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
You mean like www.facebook.com?
I fail to see why game streaming is any different than Netflix. You can't compromise the security of a device if nothing is running on the device. So this is only about Apple maintaining control.
> This is just f.lux.
Apple banned every screen-time and parental control app just before they released their own. Google Voice was banned. Apple has removed Podcasting applications for "duplicating functionality of iTunes".
> Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
I have all Android devices and my wife has all Apple devices (and I had all Apple devices in the past). There is almost no significant difference between the experiences -- the most popular apps on the store between the platforms is generally the same apps from the same companies.
And yes parental control apps were banned because they used MDM... Which they used for years and yet all were banned mere months before Apple released their own parental controls. The reason is acceptable the timing is extremely suspicious.
For Google voice, Apple themselves said they banned it because it duplicated functionality and was "confusing". Now it's quite likely the carriers pressured them to ban the app which, in my opinion, is even worse!
I can concede if there is a clearcut evidence and a source you can provide that proves it with absolute certainty. I don't think its that clear.
Also, the motivation doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple want to trade PR/brand damage for what constitutes pennies so to say for a small app? Do you think that internally Apple's executives were like "Let's copy this app, ban the developer, sustain the PR damage because it is worth making that juicy $80K from sales. Surely, our shareholders would like that!"
Lot of anger with Apple is unsubstantiated and completely emotional. There are a whole clan of people that love/hate Apple since the dawn of the company.
I just don't see why Apple would this. Usually, they buy the whole company (e.g. Shazam).
Hackernews has a regular postings (a few a year) from app developers who's long standing apps are suddenly rejected after a minor update with no recourse and they're appealing to us for help. This isn't rare, it's a regular occurrence. And those are just the ones we know about.
It's users and the developers who are losing out. You never know if Apple's going to destroy your business or nuke your favorite application and it doesn't hurt Apple at all. I doubt they even notice.
Search Ads. Every search result in the App Store has a big ad above it with an app you weren't searching for.
Also, iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because iOS exploits are so abundant in comparison to Android exploits.
Just so you know, a lot of us would like to develop our software as browser apps, but Apple has deliberately and intentionally limited the capabilities of browser on iOS devices to ensure that developers continue to develop native apps.
Oh, it's going to be so much fun when Epic wins and Taylor Swift decides to apply the same legal reasoning to the cut she pays Spotify for her music…
And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone if Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ?
Exclusives aren't mandatory. The artists get paid extra for that and can decline it if they want to.
> And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone if Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ?
The analogy to "their music service" is Apple requiring iPhone users to use exclusively their iOS app store.
Put the app store on the same level of competition and level the playing field of Spotify vs Apple Music in regards to the 30% subscription fee.
They kept all the features of Play, like uploading your own library, so honestly the least bad Google product death I've seen so far.
There are lots of questions around compensation equality (i.e. the big companies get richer, the poor get charged more) but something besides the blanket 30% rule based on some metric sounds feasible to me
That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did.
Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it.
Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
But laws govern them nonetheless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law for starters.
The court told Epic how to get in compliance with Apple, they refused, Apple in their terms clearly states they have the right to terminate their account. That's the facts of the case, it doesn't matter what anyone feels.
This case is likely to last for years so it is very much too soon to be predicting who will win.
Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.
Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps. Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.
If they don’t like the terms they can simply choose to not develop there.
Sure, but sometimes, as a society, we decide that this is simply not ok.
I know this is not a completely correct comparison, but the main counter against forcing businesses to accept non-white customers was "well, they can simply go somewhere else, what's the big deal". We as a society decided that no, actually, it is a big deal, and regardless of whether you can "simply" go somewhere else or not, you shouldn't have to.
I'm hoping that this will be the first victory in a string of rulings forcing platform holders to open them up, because we value that more than we value the platform holders ability to keep them closed. Apple just happened to be first.
As a consumer, you can push for improvements by voting with your wallet and flat out not buying Apple products. As a developer, you can push for improvements by not supporting that platform. Given that you have alternatives to Apple both as a developer and as a consumer, I don't think there's any justification for the government to force Apple to accept Epic blatantly breaking the terms they agreed to comply with.
Even if this is all in Epic’s selfish best interest, that doesn’t matter if their interest is more aligned with smaller app developers’ interests.
The balance of power is still shifted well towards Apple.
I'm betting.. a lot.
And it seems like Apple has already given the big players whatever terms they want, and epic is too small to get the same treatment
https://stratechery.com/2020/rethinking-the-app-store/
- the antitrust committee investigating them
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
It's not available on Steam store for example.
That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5% market share? I think not.
That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
He's also allowed to believe that there is a stronger case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the other people later if he wins the first suit convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
Software development and access to American consumers is no longer free and open.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line.
2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here.
Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the PC shipped with Windows.
The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp...
No one could argue that IBM is any more than a bit player in PCs in 1983.
iMessage is not an “Apple Store app” any more than the phone app. Text messages and phone calls are kind of vital to be called a phone.
However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is irrelevant for the antitrust laws.
So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.
The "platform" is the thing the customer paid for when they bought the phone.
Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
And they must not unfairly promote Autopilot.
It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that.
> By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.
To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
Yes, they could do that. I just don't understand the reason why they should be forced to.
Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS has made things worse for independent developers, and is laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized code.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116
The benefit of phones over laptops is the mobility, and I see no reason why the open options should go away for that mobility
Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides) it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.
Refusing to release an iOS app for your web application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more likely to have disposable income
B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
So comparing iOS store to only the play store will ignore a section of Android users.
What I think is an argument against Apple is that users want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to relax their rules on the Appstore.
This is much like saying that having a monopoly on retail stores in California isn't a problem because producers can just sell their product in New York. Obviously that doesn't allow them to reach the same customers. They aren't alternatives to each other because you need both to reach your entire customer base. Compare to Walmart where if you don't sell through them, the exact same customers can easily walk across the street and buy your product at Target.
In what sense can people in California not relocate to NY but people with iPhones can relocate to Android? In both cases moving is possible but the cost is far in excess of the cost of the typical product you'd buy in the store.
It isn't a negligible transition.
I'm not talking about writing an application for iOS and Android, then selling it in the store. I do think that's a separate case.
I'm talking about, as the best examples, xCloud and Hey. Web services which need to offer a mobile experience. Microsoft will be fine without Apple, but Hey faced legitimate business issues when Apple kicked them out. These companies are uninterested in the App Store Economy: They just want distribution.
Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software. What Apple does is far worse imo, not just bundling software, but the control over the store/devices is nuts.
Microsoft “invested” a token $250 million in Apple. The same quarter, Apple spent $100 million to buy PoweComputings Mac license. The $150 net did not save Apple. Apple lost far more money than that before it became profitable.
What MS did was promise to continue releasing both Office and IE for the Mac.
Not quite. Microsoft's antitrust violations involved coercing other companies to bundle IE with their products. In particular:
1. They forced OEMs to ship IE instead of Netscape as a condition of obtaining Windows OEM licenses.
2. They made deals with ISPs to ship IE instead of Netscape (for example on AOL CDs).
3. They threatened to pull Office for Mac if Apple shipped Netscape with Mac OS instead of IE.
The question of whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was never decided by the appeals court. It was remanded back to the district court for additional proceedings which never happened as the lawsuit was eventually settled.
This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store.
> about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior too.
I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users".
Edit: grammar
They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
True, but that doesn't negate other intentions.
It prevents you from dynamically compiling code at runtime which is a needed rule because otherwise apps would just run around the curation process.
You can create browser engines without this feature.
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
To Chrome, not IE/Edge, which benefits from the browser ballot as much as they do.
> Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
The problem isn't installing apps. It's installing app-stores: the programs we use for exploring and accessing apps.
How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink?
Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc
Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music
Books - Kindle.
Maps - Google Maps
Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail
...
Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely.
And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access. Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted.
> Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access.
Also known as "private APIs" etc.
> Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
I am so glad we have companies like Apple who actually take privacy and security seriously.
And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
So reject the dodgy apps then. What justification is that for denying it to Signal? In particular, what justification is that for denying it to Signal but not iMessage?
> And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
Signal and WhatsApp on iPhones can't send SMS. Chrome on iPhones isn't Chrome, it's Safari with a Chrome logo.
So now it went from Apple “bans” apps to it has tighter security restrictions?
The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
It means you're using a different app for secure messaging and SMS. If they're the same app then it knows to not send SMS to the person you have encrypted messaging set up with.
It also requires you to use multiple messaging apps, which increases cognitive load and the potential for mistakes, because there is nothing available on iOS that can both send SMS and send secure messages to Android devices.
> So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
Smart people make mistakes all the time. Isn't that your whole thing about not giving the user full control over the device?
How many people trusted the “no logging VPNs” before the ES hacks showed they were in fact logging everything?
Here's an article that goes over some of it (although it oversells Apple's first party advantage I think)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-app...
Apple also has a no Copy-Cats guideline that has been used to push out some apps, although maybe its not wide spread enough to be a concern.
There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#cop...
There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape.
Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).
Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers.
Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.
It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.
In a way, they did. They made deals with OEMs to only ship PCs with Windows on them, and not, say, BeOS or Linux.
Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
That’s long term better for Apple.
Not possible on iOS.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
[3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...
Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court.
No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping.
This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world.
[1]: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile
That's fair, however I don't believe web usage is the correct metric to use either. In any case the numbers are still a far cry from the 95% Microsoft held during their antitrust case.
> Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other.
By that logic Nintendo games don't "compete" with Xbox or Playstation games. I disagree with this narrowly defined view of the market in which Nintendo games, Xbox games, and Playstation games are viewed as competing in three separate markets, instead of competing in the overall video game market.
> They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution.
I disagree that this is a valid antitrust market and I think Epic is going to have a hard time convincing a court to accept this narrow market definition. US courts generally frown upon treating aftermarkets of a single brand's product as a valid antitrust market unless specific circumstances are met.
Those circumstances usually involve situations where the consumer lacks information about aftermarket restrictions or policies when the original product is purchased. In this case, iPhone customers know when they buy an iPhone that they will only be able to install apps via the App Store. If they are unhappy with this limitation they have an option of buying a different phone without such limitations. If they decide to go ahead and buy anyway, they did so knowingly, therefore antitrust liability is not likely in those circumstances.
> This is going to come down to how a court interprets this
I think many people are going to be disappointed by this. Aftermarket scenarios are not uncommon in antitrust law and the existing precedent is not in Epic's favor.
Apple has more active users in the US than Android btw.
The fallacy being repeated is actually people defining monopolies by referencing market share.
Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
Not sure what would be needed to accomplish this.
Maybe better WebGL?
That would be amazing to help kids discover that the internet is much larger than apps.
I wish Sweeney would wake up and realize this. Sure, PWA support isn't great on iOS, but if you click this link below you will be transported into a web version of Diablo that is completely playable on any iOS device:
https://d07riv.github.io/diabloweb/
Off the top of my head, iOS Safari doesn't support notifications or (at least on iPhone) fullscreen API. Surprisingly there is controller support
https://caniuse.com/#feat=fullscreen
Apple is only the distributor here. If they would charge a reasonable processing fee (4-5% like credit card companies do) nobody would have had - presumably - a problem.
Unlike with most (all?) other platforms there is no way to install apps from any alternate sources.
30% is the modern version of way-laying. (IMHO at least)
When the government decides a business is too big to fail, it'll ensure that the company keeps running. Just look at 2008
Those two cases stand out for me because they ended exactly like the one on display here.
Do you want to see side deals with your privacy too?
My top of the line MBP died aprox 2 years after I bought it. By that time there were thousands of people with the same problem on the internet. Obviously I had to buy another Mac to keep on working.
If Apple had cared about its customers it would have taken the defective machines early on and either exchanged them for new machines, or at least offered a proportion of its retail price towards a new Mac. Apple didn't do nothing of the sorts.
It took almost 2 more years and 3-4 action class lawsuits for Apple to finally start a repair program.
By that time I could't even sell the damn thing after the repairs. I ended up giving it away to a junior dev and guess what? It died a year later of the same problem.
On the other hand, I don't feel good about the way Epic went about this. Makes it hard to support them because they were the ones who first started the war by deliberately breaking the terms of service. There's gotta be a better way.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
They maintain the platform.
They promote the platform.
What's arbitrary about that?
And to respond to GP. This has nothing to do with "bootlicking". The same thing should apply regardless of the company.
Android existing doesn't invalidate this claim.
I can do whatever I want with my phone.
I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.
Apple literally doesn't have to write any software! All we're asking is for Apple to remove the software they've written that intentionally blocks any other software from working!
Android has a checkbox to install apps from any source. Hardly anyone even knows about its existence, but it means that we don't have to have a black market for phones with a given app installed (context: iPhones with Fortnite already installed were being sold for 2k+ per pop on eBay when the app was blocked).
They push their own services like Apple Music by having pre installed apps, free app store placement, not having to pay the 30% cut over other competitors like Spotify. In a low margin business that is live or die.
They force a browser like Firefox to not have its own engine as well.
Looks quite anti competitive to me.
The platform was built by every consumer, app devs, hardware vendors, and many others.
These players of the platform voluntarily cooperate with apple, and allow apple the oversized power, because the economic values of doing that is higher than other behaviors.
There isn't a moral high ground for apple, nor a particularly outsized contribution by apple considering their profit from the platform.
What you said is so superficial that it does not even refer to the right topic.
"Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time."
But this should not be a surprise to an Apple customer. This is a 'feature' of Apple products.
Moreover, the app you want may not have existed when you bought your first iPhone and became locked into the platform. Or it may have been on the iOS app store at that time and was subsequently removed.
I’m not particularly invested in Fortnite, but if Apple removes one of my favorite apps I’m going to get really cranky at any friend that suggests that I should have planned ahead for what to do if the app dev and the phone maker got in fight years after I bought my phone.
Basically, you can still sell on Android, or, make your own phone/mobile operating system?
Shopping malls owned by supermarket companies do exactly that. A hypermarket in the centre, owned by the supermarket company itself, and hundreds of smaller stores around, operated by others in the same building.
And again—-going back to the Walmart/Target analogy, if you wanted to enter into a business deal with a third party in a Walmart, Walmart would demand a cut too.
No, that's not what I said. I said general computing device. For a lot of people nowadays, their phone or tablet is the only computing device they have. The argument here is that Apple is stopping two sides from engaging in a fully legal business transaction. Epic wants to sell you their game, you want to buy that game. The fact that it's running on a device manufactured by Apple is only tangential here - Apple should have the freedom to run their app store however they see fit, but Epic's argument is that they shouldn't be a gatekeeper to allowing and purchasing applications on their devices, because that stifles competition and innovation on the market(which the government is trying to protect). I think it's really well explained here[0]
It's as if Nescafe tried to forbid anyone from making capsules that work in their machines - their argument could be the same, we made the machine, our capsules guarantee correct operation and quality standard, therefore our machines shouldn't work with anything else. And yet....it would be illegal for them to do so, just like it is illegal for a car manufacturer to forbid you from using 3rd party replacement parts. They can void your warranty, sure, but they legally cannot forbid you from fitting 3rd party replacements. But it's about freedom of choice - if you want to buy original Mercedes parts, you can. If you only want to buy apps vetted and approved by apple - you can.
>> I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook.
Literally no one wants to take this away from you. If you want to only install apps from the App Store that have gone through apple's approval process - please continue to do so.
>>So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction?
The distinction isn't that everything should be compatible with everything. Just that anyone should be allowed to make software for anything, which the platform holders are trying to forbid. Apple is just the first one - but I'd hope that eventually the same argument will be made against Microsoft and Sony and yes, you will be allowed to make a game for PS4/Xbox without having to explicitly ask those companies for approval. The example with the printer is an interesting one, because like I mentioned earlier - manufacturers cannot forbid you from neither making replacement cartridges for their printers, nor from you using them. The ability to do so for hardware has been enshrined in law for a long time. Why not for software?
[0] https://stratechery.com/2020/rethinking-the-app-store/
If target was the only store in the world it should not be able to set itself whatever profit margin it wants..
This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of control third parties should have over the App Store as retailer, it's an argument for why this current arrangement is exploitative, and not analogous to conventional retail platforms like Target.
[1] - https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-how-an-a...
The analogy to a company town is apt. When you embarked for a town, both AndroidLand and Appletown were the same distance away, but now that you have settled down the prospect of migrating outside is considerably more difficult.
As far as media that you bought, music that you bought on iTunes has been DRM free for almost a decade.
Even with movies, you can blame the lock in on the studios that don’t participate in “Movies Anywhere”. Any movie from the participating studios that you buy on Prime Video, Google Play, Vudu, or iTunes is automatically considered purchased on the other platforms.
Most of the money being spent on the App Store are from in app consumables.
And the example you gave of the Kindle still doesn’t make me question the App Store market: if kindle had a kiosk in a target to sell ebooks, I bet target would demand a cut too.
If what you’re after is data portability then solve for that. I’d rather have a law that covers all digital companies rather than devolve the App Store into some unregulated flee market.
Epic has been trying to position their own game store as a competitor to Steam. One of the things they have been doing is spending money paying for games to be exclusive to their platform. This is seen as the ultimate evil by gamers who want all of their games in one place (on Steam).
I'm not invested at all in this debate, but I do silently hope that Epic succeeds purely for the little guys who may benefit from that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Or people might enjoy being able to use a device without having to worry about viruses and whatnot.. a problem plaguing Windows and slowly starting to affect many Android users as well. And while they might feel comfortable being able to avoid such viruses themselves, then they likely have friends and family that will suffer from it (you might think it’s easy not to install a different App Store, just like you might think it’s easy not to click on phishing links in your mailbox.. but it unfortunately isn’t easy for the average user).
Or people might worry about losing all sorts of privacy as a result of the Apple being forced to open up various parts of their system.
Surely there are things that such app developer organisation could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first, exclusive deals, etc.
Now they are shooting the goose because they want a bigger share of the egg.
The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet. Instead of riding the wave they are getting off of it.
Can people sell the goods that they buy from Epic? What will happen to these goods ten year from now?
People understand perfectly well that Fortnite skins have no intrinsic value. They buy them because they enjoy the game and the skins have subjective value to them. Maybe the game will be around in a decade, maybe it won't; it doesn't matter.
Fortnite is far from the only game with paid cosmetics, it's a model that appears to work quite well from a business perspective, even over time. CS:GO has had weapon skins in lootboxes for 7 years now. (That's just one example.)
It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.
Most Apple users are deeply locked into the ecosystem. I guess it is sunk cost fallacy, now even though the cracks are clearly showing they don't want to see Apple fail in any way. You'll see people rationalize anything Apple does without blinking.
And it makes sense too. If I use a mac, iphone, apple watch, airpods, have all my photos on iCloud etc I would not want Apple to face any hurdles.
I don’t see why this is relevant. Apple runs a business. If you force it to walk away from income sources, you could just as well force any other company to do the same. So even if consumers would win, how would it justify the enforcement?
I win if I get your car. Now what?
(I’m on neither side.)
If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores:
1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection restrictions. 2. Epic will want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app purchases. 3. Google will want a store that allows them to track your location in the background regardless of your consent. 4. The New York Times will want a store where you cannot find a way to cancel your subscription.
And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and end up with a poor user experience.
And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for me.
I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.
Take Amazon’s Audible as an example. I use that. I want to continue using that. If Amazon launched its own store on iOS, does that mean they stop distributing it on the native App Store? If they do make it exclusive to their store, I will have to download their store.
I really don’t like the 30%, but that I see the line Apple shouldn’t cross. Loosening restrictions or opening it up for more stores effectively means the iOS platform wouldn’t be worth What it is now.
Epic previously tried to build out a Fortnite playerbase on Android outside of the Play Store and was unsuccessful in drawing in players, so they had to upload it to the Play Store (which has now been removed).
The reason why the Fortnite outside Play store failed is because the user has to donwload the apk and toggle the installation from unknown sources.
Android is already a mess with multiple stores and loose, to put it mildly, standards for the quality of apps. And that still isn't enough for Epic. I don't want my iPhone turning into an Android (I did have many choices, and I chose iPhone) and I __definitely__ don't want it turning to an even less regulated ecosystem than what we already have with Android.
I don't really care if developers are happy, because so many of them have interests hostile to mine. Apple is fortunately big enough to be able to force folks like Facebook and Uber to play by the rules. They're also big enough to force developers to play ball with things like iPad support or get booted from the store. The cost of targeting iPad is less than the cost of e.g. Twitter losing their spot on iPhones, so now iPad has a great Twitter app where it didn't before.
Edit: forgot to mention how Apple's subscription management process is far, far superior to any other device. I explicitly choose to subscribe through Apple because I know I will be notified before renewal and that I can cancel easily. I know the scale of the iPhone market, combined with Apple's restrictions, are the only reason I have that choice.
People paint this whole situation as Epic fighting for the consumer, but really Epic is fighting for the interests of Epic alone. I know Android users don't get it becuase they may not have experienced it, but really Apple is adding loads of value here and taking that value away isn't automatically pro-consumer, even if associated with words like 'freedom' and 'competition'.
Edit: Another perspective on this is that as a developer who writes software for Android and iOS, iOS is a far, far superior experience. Things work more reliably, testing is easier because iOS is an OS whereas Android is really a family of operating systems - see how much things can change on Pixel vs Galaxy. Things are getting better over time especially with AndroidX and Jetpack, but the developer experience is still loads better on iOS.
If you're referring to developer as 'individual who writes software for iOS' Apple is far superior. If you're thinking of developer as 'financial entity that profits off software' then the 30% cut becomes more painful, but Apple justifies that by having a premium offering with customers who spend more on apps.
iOS is widely regarded as being the safest consumer OS in widespread usage on the market today. Much of that is because of the restrictions that apple places on developers ability to install arbitrary code on the user's device. Epic is suing for the ability to create an app store that would allow third-party developers to install arbitrary binaries on iOS devices without oversight from Apple.
that level of restriction is a part of the product. It's what people are paying for when they buy an iOS device. People actually want that. And there's no reason why there shouldn't be an option for consumers to pick a locked-down platform. Many developers are hostile to users, and many users consciously want a device that makes that hostility harder for developers.
The 30% take that Apple charges is steep and is replicated by basically all other vendors, so I'd be happy to see that reduced since it improves all ecosystems. But the app approval process and the single app store ecosystem is a thing that I think differentiates iOS, and I wouldn't want to see that changed.
fwiw, I have an Android phone, which I picked because I wanted to use Daydream. I never really use that, so my next phone will probably be an iPhone.
I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices.
A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%.
Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.
What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?
As far as I understand this is something Google was specifically allowed to do because their nature as streaming service. E.g most of companies are not allowed to sell subscription or app options for 30% extra on iOS and make it possible to pay for them on their own website for normal price.