What general purposes do game consoles serve, other than being multimedia centers? Do users use the browser and other internet features on consoles extensively? Can you make payments, hail a ride, order food with them? Can you contact emergency services with them? Can they save your literal life?
Exactly. They are general purpose computers, artificially crippled by their manufacturer, to prevent their (supposed) owner from using their full potential.
This is a silly argument. Nobody is checking their bank account on their Xbox. We can acknowledge that iPhones are needlessly closed platforms while also acknowledging that there are legitimate purpose-built computers in various form factors (gaming consoles being a good example.)
That is exactly the point. There is nothing inherent in an Xbox that prevents it from running a web browser. Only our collective acceptance of the practice of denying users control of their devices, and letting these arbitrary restrictions contribute to e-waste.
People were making a lot of noise about Sony retroactively removing functionality not too long ago.
But even if we accept the bogus argument that a console (a behemoth CPU with 100s of watts of power available) is not a general purpose system, that's not relevant:
Why should a company have to go through Sony or Microsoft's stores to buy games for their console? What makes consoles somehow different from phones? - I would put money on the primary apps people buy from the App Store being games?
Claiming the Sony/MS make a loss on console sales isn't relevant either - firstly because they're charging ~30% on games with an average sale price in the region of $60 they make up that "loss" very quickly, secondly neither company expends significant (any?) resources developing features for their consoles once they've been sold (vs. Apple that is still providing major updates and functionality to devices 5 years after they stopped being sold)
I actually used to do it. When I was younger, my parents offered me a PS3 and I had no personal computer of my own. So I installed Ubuntu on my PS3 (it was possible at the time, until a later patch where they disallowed it) and used it both as a desktop computer and as a PS3. That was pretty cool.
For a very specific definition of Windows 10. It is extremely stripped down and with a wildly different set of APIs in many places, it's just that it supports D3D and XAML
Phones can (even right now, with the limitations placed by Apple, Google) do everything a computer can. Capacity limits apply, but the general activities that a laptop/pc can do, a phone can as well.
Not really. Most of the planet uses a smartphone as their primary (and sometimes only) computing device. As time goes on there are fewer and fewer use cases that still require a full desktop environment and OS.
However, I think consoles have always been "consume media" devices in peoples minds. Maybe with steam deck (assuming it can get any level of popularity that xbox/ps have) we might see attitudes shift towards them.
A lot of these lawmakers are unaware of the exact internals of these devices. Phones can do everything realistically. Manage your bank accounts, pay your taxes, find jobs, make calls, consume media. Heck they can do more than your average laptop/computer - and this is self-evident for lawmakers. The same can not (yet) be said for consoles.
Anyway, I do hope we take more of these steps in the future. At the very least it reduces ewaste.
The problem is when some critical app forces you to use their store.
I hope at the very least apple can mandate that the additional app stores enforce the same privacy and safety rules, or would the EU consider that allowing people to not be spied on be to much of an infringement of the rights of business?
As I mentioned elsewhere, it’s debatable whether or not the other tech giants are really going to bother creating another app store, and then force users to migrate there.
Such a move is basically mutually assured destruction- they would be taking their critical app off the official Apple App Store, and in doing so inviting huge customer backlash. Besides the negative press, at least a fraction of users will not migrate over- both HN power users technical and ideological enough to reject entering a user data harvesting shady app store, and the less technically adept users who can’t figure out how to enable such a store. Not to mention, everyone who is sick and tired of having to manage yet another user account forced upon them by a tech giant. It’s guaranteed that not 100% of existing users would transition, and even if it’s not a huge amount, it would be upsetting the apple cart and damaging the brand.
There’s more considerations beyond that I mentioned previously- the difficulties of these companies now having to create their own parallel iOS app ecosystems- again, ask Facebook how their own platform’s app community is faring these days, let alone every smartphone app market that isn’t iOS or Android.
And it’s debatable that these tech giants can even successfully create a sufficiently compelling alternate app market from a product or business perspective. It feels like all of the giants are at a point where they’re engaged in side projects- cloud gaming, Clubhouse clones, Snapchat stories clones, Libra- that don’t really have staying power, as far as new products go. Creating a parasitic clone iOS App Store would yet be another boondoggle, and committing to it, as I mention, is MAD- Apple loses their apps, and these companies are forever tied to having to maintain and work on their 3rd party app stores. In fact, one can easily imagine a Meta pulling back and resubmitting Facebook, Instagram, etc. back to the official App Store after initially removing them. And it’s incredibly easy to imagine Google resigning an iOS Play Store to the Google Graveyard before you can say Stadia.
Smartphone software has been around a decade now. I don’t think it’s so easy to woo users over with your own carbon copy that offers nothing. Not to mention, perhaps these companies might invite regulator antitrust attention as well if they keep truly “critical apps” away from the official App Store. There’s a lot of possible implications.
I think the prospect of tech giant data-harvesting third party iOS app stores is a fascinating prospect that hasn’t been examined in detail. Too often it’s used as a bogeyman, “Facebook will take away their app and track you!” against sideloading. The reality is probably more complex that that, and I would argue that opening iOS to alternate app marketplaces and sideloading might actually increase business opportunities and vectors of positive innovation for Apple. But that’s the subject of another comment.
Epic has wanted to do this for a long time. If you have enough clout like Fortnite had, you can do it. You also have GOG, Steam and other game stores on PC. They might also push “mobile carriers should be able to install whatever they want”-legislation that adds extra app stores.
You make some good points, but in my linked comment, and in the comment linked to that comment, I do carve out an exception that game publishers will likely be ones who want to pursue having their own third party app stores. That is because as seen in the PC gaming world, such companies can ruthlessly force gamers to join their locked down stores. But I think this is a specific niche that allows for that because games are a medium that’s developed into this sort of unique landscape.
Also, I’m uncertain if many of these companies really have that many iOS game exclusives to incentivize this sort of lock in- Epic being a major exception. But most other publishers don’t exactly have big iOS libraries. Most of their apps are more like incidental tie-in material accompanying their actual PC and console titles.
One should note that Meta could create their own Android third party store right now, like Amazon has (pretty much only to support their Kindle Fire devices), yet they haven't had any interest in doing so. One could claim that's because Android users don't pay as much for apps as iOS users do, but that's still a lot of users worldwide, and a lot of data that could be tracked. Yet they don't bother to.
On the other hand the Play store is not being policed for days tracking and many apps are stuffed to the brim with tracking libraries.
So they really don't have a need to do this.
Apple can still make it difficult for them though. They can just remove the forbidden APIs and sandbox apps better. If they do this they don't even have to bother to review as thoroughly anymore.
The big benefit is that Apple no longer gets to decide what type of apps are allowed and what aren't.
The sandbox is enforced by App Store review. I don't mean the runtime enforcement, but rather the sandbox that apps opt into. It is the App Store that rejects apps when they have attempted to include sandbox entitlements that they have no business having.
Access to your photos, contacts, device identifiers, etc are all gated on sandbox entitlements, and if you remove the App Store review process then you remove the gate the prevents an app from saying "give me read/write access to the whole file system", "give me read/write access to the photos on the device", etc
Apple could always enforce a more restrictive, hardened security model for non-official App Store distributed apps. Again, they control the platform- they could change it at will to accommodate new use cases.
Android has an explicit opt-in for allowing sideloading, and a whopping 0.06% of users currently utilize it. I really don't know why this issue is causing such a big fuss in the iOS ecosystem.
My impression is that the Google Play store is much less hostile to developers than the Apple store. Which makes for larger momentum/impact to actually move to 3rd party services.
(I have only dabbled in Android apps, my impression of the Apple situation is very much that, an impression.)
I never understand people who make this argument. Everyone has choice, go buy an Android phone and install/customize whatever you want. Apple has chosen what parts of their OS and user experience they control versus what part they let the user control. Personally I'm very happy with it because it gives me higher quality apps and some reasonable protection versus the alternative. If your issue is that you don't like where that line is split, fine, then choose a different platform like Android. Now if Android didn't exist, then your argument would hold more water for me.
Presumably, they could just treat iOS like macOS, where there already is a notarization system that covers apps distributed outside of the Mac App store.
What market abuse? And what do you split up? Apple is a hardware company, all the software they write is purely to make the hardware they sell attractive to consumers.
Who should pay for the cost of development then? Apple has always been very clear, the store commission is for use of their IP. Any other store can undercut apple because they don’t have to pay any of the development costs for the platform.
There is no weaseling, it is very simple: the commission covers the licensing. The alternative is saying that apple must develop software, give it away for free, then let random stores make a profit selling software that they contributed nothing to.
It is exactly equivalent to the EU saying that a company should be free to use GPL software however they like, including selling at a profit, without providing the sources.
I hope some healthy competition will make app development on Apple easier. Submitting to the AppStore is often half of the development time for a simple app, the user experience is terrible. Xcode sucks and they force you to use it. Just let us use third party tools it's better for your own platform also. Just let us make iPhone apps in VIM, like civilized people. Maybe webapps will also now finally get proper support like Android, you just know the platform could be way better if they did not force you past their toll booth, even for free apps.
The best bit is that the proposal requires devices to support the original app store AND side-loading.
Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want, because of (a) Fortnite / alt payment options (b) Facebook / privacy restrictions bypass, i.e. the loss of revenue and the loss of credibility as a (sort of) privacy-oriented platform.
So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR.
They still control the OS so they can probably still do a lot to avoid privacy issues. Just by locking down their APIs and sandboxing properly. The EU is not asking for a jailbreak/root. Just side loading.
Also it could lead to a much better ecosystem of open-source apps like there is with F-Droid on Android. It'll take some time to develop but I really love many F-Droid apps over their commercial alternatives. Apps are so much more efficient if they just do what they need to do and don't bother with all the spying and ads.
It could also finally enable other browsers on iOS for real!
> So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR.
I am not sure about this. Who would buy an iphone with the intention to sideload apps if it does not let them install all the apps that the iphone is famous for at the same time? Microsoft allowed users to still use IE (and Office and everything else) after they have been forced to offer other browsers.
I envision a scenario, where you buy a new iphone and selecting/configuring appstores is part of the setup process and can be changed later. As many as you want, just like you would add repos in a package manager.
We would not allow our shopping bags to limit our possible sources of groceries to one specific supermarket chain.
Considering that never happened on Android I think it’s even less likely in Apple’s case. Unless the EU explicitly requires Apple to show window allowing the user to pick the app stores he wants to use like they sid with web browsers
So it sounds like it requires Apple to give away its IP at no cost. This is no different from (for example) requiring the linux kernel devs, or the fsf to allow people to use their IP without complying with the GPL.
No? This is more like Apple telling a car company to allow any gas instead of only "apple approved gas" which is marked up by 30% in price. It doesn't mean that any company can just copy that car and put their label on it.
Apple and Microsoft charge for upgrades on computers, but not for security updates.
Cross-subsidization is obscuring the true cost of a good and not permitting consumer choice, many people don't want UI revamps and feature rewrites bundled with basic security updates, with the cost hidden in the fees charged to App Store developers and never disclosed to the customer.
What are you talking about? Apple doesn’t charge for OS updates, yet provides years of support for all its devices. The alternative is charging for updates, or going the android route and selling out users while while also not providing any updates.
Google can give away android because Android is stalkerware that feeds their ad revenue.
In the U.S., rooting does not void the warranty unless the manufacturer can prove the rooting itself caused physical damage. Just having a blanket policy of rooting = voided warranty is illegal because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
“Sideloading” is the perfect word to frame the behavior of downloading apps in a negative light or as an illicit activity. No-one has ever talked of sideloading an app on macOS – because sideloading is simply downloading an app from the Internet as we have known it from the very beginning of the Internet. I still cannot believe most people adopted this word as part of this discussion and keep using it, helping Apple’s narrative. Stop using “sideloading”, use “downloading from the Internet”!
sideloading was never a term used in any official documentation or communication the term was coined by the android community. we have to pick our own nose for that one.
On Android it specifically refers to installing something on your phone via your computer with the adb sideload command. If you just download and install an apk on the phone itself, it's not sideloading. For this reason it wouldn't make sense to use the term for installing anything on a PC.
I never though "sideloading" had a negative connotation in the Android world. It always felt neutral to me. Kind of a "you can do this if you want but you're on your own if it's malicious".
It also made a distinction between apps acquired from the Play Store and apps you loaded yourself from outside of it.
The desire to collect rent drives so many nasty behaviors in companies.
At its core, this is a discussion about rent seeking. Apple and Google lust after their 30% cut, which is outrageous and would not be long tolerated in any other business arrangement. They keep the gravy train going because of gatekeeping.
“I want to root/mod my device” and “right to repair” are interesting but orthogonal arguments. Those arguments are about “what does it mean to own a thing”.
I am glad the EU is doing this but I despair that Apple and Google will still avoid this in the US.
Personally, I’m mostly happy with the App Store except their bans based on political POV (disguised as content violations).
I’m much more unhappy with the content stores on mobile devices; I want to set Amazon as my book store and buy within the Kindle app.
What’s the typical margin in physical retail stores, particularly with respect to software (eg video games)? It’s hard to find. All the things I found are about profit margins not what the price breakdown is at the point of checkout.
I think 30% has been ridiculously high although I don’t know what a fairer margin is. For what it’s worth Apple has managed to maintain a 30% profit margin (not just sales) on the hardware they sell which is unheard of in the consumer electronics industry (everyone else is struggling to just barely make money in phones and mostly losing while others are taking a much more modest cut in other categories). Partly it’s branding. Partly it’s savvy business practices. Partly it’s immoral business practices.
> When setting your wholesale price, first multiply your cost of goods by two. This will ensure your wholesale profit margin is at least 50%.
Profit margin is the gross profit a retailer earns when an item is sold.
Apparel retail brands typically aim for a 30% to 50% wholesale profit margin, while direct-to-consumer retailers aim for a profit margin of 55% to 65%. (A margin is sometimes also referred to as “markup percentage.”)
So 50% is about normal for retail goods. Yes yes. They have physical merchandise they need to manage. Apple has engineers they need to pay to do their virtual distribution. Maybe 30% is excessive. Certainly that they're the only store and hold a monopoly on the things they allow people to do on their platform is probably fueling that margin to be higher than it should. However, if we look at Steam[2] and other console manufacturers, we see similar 30% markups. Maybe everyone is just copying Apple's lead here as "customers will swallow this". Or maybe Apple figured out a good virtual store distribution model and this is the markup needed for a sustainable thriving business.
The argument that 30% is excessive and a product of their monopoly is bullshit.
1) the majority of apps don’t pay apple a cent because they make their money off selling user information
2) of those that remain most likely aren’t reaching the income point where it stops being 15%
3) 30% matches the payments of every other store, except those stores that don’t pay for any of the platform development. It’s super easy to charge next to nothing when you don’t have to pay actual engineers to make actual products.
People often complain about the markup on Macs, so it seems reasonable to interpret that as a higher margin being used to compensate for the lack of ongoing revenue. Higher margins are the obvious (only?) alternative to ongoing commission revenue - that obviously puts Apple at a disadvantage compared to
* Google, who makes money by harvesting information from every android user; or
* Samsung, etc who don't pay the cost of developing a platform
* Steam, GoG, etc who literally only operate a store front, yet still take 30% cuts. They don't even have significant proportion of free games - and the games that they do have are frequently > $50 so their per-sale absolute revenue is insane.
* The various console platforms, because somehow consoles are magically different from everyone else
* Microsoft (ignoring consoles) who charges for their OS, and despite that seems hell bent on putting ads into the OS
Are margins on Macs higher than on iPhones? I’d assume at least with Intel they were lower than for iOS devices.
Also basically all Apple’s direct competitors both in the PC and smartphone businesses operate on paltry margins in comparison to Apple. They usually sell a mix of low/high margin products though, e.g. most premium Dell or Lenovo laptops are priced at similar levels to Macbooks (of course their real price might significantly lower due to infinitely better customizability and
reparability options). And almost none of them have significant additional revenue streams (not to a degree comparable to Apple). Yet they are still in business.
Apple would be able not to only to survive but to still thrive if they significantly cut their margins and the app store tax. Of course it would not be fair or sensible to expect any company to leave free money on the table. This is why we get ads in Windows, seem like most users dont’t really mind them too much (to be fair I’m not sure I have actually seen one, maybe it’s a windows edition and/or country thing.
That's a trivial amount to enable Apple to provide documentation and tooling support for developers. I doubt it comes anywhere close to paying for all the libraries and frameworks they develop and maintain.
My partner works in buying for physical retail (caveats: nothing to do with software, also she’s generally worked mid market and above, rather than anything high volume/low cost) and I believe _margin_ is often 30-60%, or a range similar to that. Larger retailers will also have agreements with suppliers where the margin is stipulated, I believe per SKU.
Obviously the comparison is slightly Apples to oranges, as physical retailers have massive overheads/COGS that Apple don’t incur for the App Store.
Those physical retailers aren't paying engineer salaries to sit around and develop new IDEs, develop the app store ecosystem, content moderators etc. I think people see "zomg - I'm paying Apple 30% for their app store" without realizing the end retailer often charges a fairly large markup to run their part of the business.
the platform development comes with sale of the platform - which is to say the customer has already paid to have it developed by buying the phone.
Many developers don't want to have apple be their gatekeeper for apps. They should be able to have alternatives. Apple's rent seeking behaviour is to take platform development in the cost of the device and again to distribute apps without any alternative.
So you think the Samsung model is correct? That is, devices shouldn’t receive any updates after the initial purchase?
I will accept the argument that apple’s gatekeeping is ridiculous, a lot of that is the bizarre prudishness of the US, but saying that apple should not be compensated at a rate that is generally below the market - the majority of apps on the AppStore are freemium from which apple makes nothing, the remainder are mostly only paying a 15% commission. This is vs 30% or so on game consoles, 30% on steam, etc.
you're offering a false equivalence that isnt required for my argument to be true, so I'm going to say 'i never said that, you did,and you never managed to make a logical argument out of it yet'.
It's already a competitive landscape. If you feel Apple is unfairly charging you extra for something, then you have a myriad number of Android and other phones to choose from.
On the other hand, if Apple's model allows them to better compete with others and create a superior product that people want ... well then, it's ridiculous to mandate they should do business a different way.
their business business model allows them to compete because they're rent seeking by grazing off developers and apps that dont want or need their app store, payment processor, etc.
Wow who knew rent seeking was massively profitable, huge surprise!
> The point is none of the third party app stores pay for any of the platform development ...
Isn't that because Apple doesn't allow for third party repos/stores/etc?
If that changes after all (I'm personally hoping it does), then it would make sense that the new alternative store(s) would have their own overheads (development, running costs, etc) and would have their own fees.
The other stores wouldn't be paying for the ongoing development and maintenance of the iOS, UIKit, OpenGL/Metal, etc. That stuff is NOT cheap to develop and maintain. The final app that you see is trivial compared to the mountain of libraries and frameworks that Apple provides.
I’m not as optimistic as you guys. What I think we will get is a fragmented mess, with the app store that allows the most stealing of data winning. WeChat is a good example where on Android they require access to your whole contact list to even start but on iOS this is not the case because Apple don’t allow it. Competition is going to make this things worse not better. Once you have competition that uses dark patterns (ui), those guys earn more money and can drown out the marketing the “good guys” do. Look at New York Times unsubscription over the phone and others. I see some apps moving between app stores to chase the money, not the “best for the user”-award.
I don’t see the other giants being sufficiently motivated to, nor having the ability to execute, lasting competitive 3rd party app stores. Maybe if it was a decade ago. It not that they don’t have the resources or technical capabilities to it, but I don’t think they have the product ability to excel on the platform of a competitor, in this case Apple. And consumers are just sick of having to manage more accounts. They’re not going to have the patience to let iOS fragmemt like the streaming space has.
I believe it is more like having an option. Having more freedeom. And as with other aspects of life freedom comes with increased responsibility. Those want things to be curated for and told to them, and - hopefully - remain on the 'safe' side, with the added convenience that others - hopefuly - doing a good job in elminating risks, doing this hard task for them for their convenience, could still stick to Apple's services.
But I assume even those will benefit if Apple has to compete with alternative sources of services. Myself I feel the Apple app store is somewhat inadequate and clumsy to use both for consumers and suppliers. Me and some others around me have this view that it could be done better. Especially the process of publishing your work. It remains a bumpy ride as there is no incentive for them to spend on improving it, people have no other choice than doing it the way Apple dictates, no alternatives. Even as consumer navigating the store it feels pretty much directed into a particular direction others want us to go.
Hopefully those not thinking about using alternative choices will benefit too from the opening up of the infrastructure.
I'm principally for allowing side-loading, but in this era of surveillance capitalism it might be a net negative for non-tech savvy iOS users. Facebook will leave the Appstore to circumvent Apple's privacy policies. God knows what they will do to users installing Facebook or Instagram.
I don't really care for the app stores.
Just make Safari support web standards better.
And give a decent Add to Home Screen functionality from the browser.
124 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadMedia computers could be subject to the same side loading regulations since compromise should only impact non-critical functions.
People were making a lot of noise about Sony retroactively removing functionality not too long ago.
But even if we accept the bogus argument that a console (a behemoth CPU with 100s of watts of power available) is not a general purpose system, that's not relevant:
Why should a company have to go through Sony or Microsoft's stores to buy games for their console? What makes consoles somehow different from phones? - I would put money on the primary apps people buy from the App Store being games?
Claiming the Sony/MS make a loss on console sales isn't relevant either - firstly because they're charging ~30% on games with an average sale price in the region of $60 they make up that "loss" very quickly, secondly neither company expends significant (any?) resources developing features for their consoles once they've been sold (vs. Apple that is still providing major updates and functionality to devices 5 years after they stopped being sold)
A PS5 today could easily run whatever desktop OS.
However, I think consoles have always been "consume media" devices in peoples minds. Maybe with steam deck (assuming it can get any level of popularity that xbox/ps have) we might see attitudes shift towards them.
A lot of these lawmakers are unaware of the exact internals of these devices. Phones can do everything realistically. Manage your bank accounts, pay your taxes, find jobs, make calls, consume media. Heck they can do more than your average laptop/computer - and this is self-evident for lawmakers. The same can not (yet) be said for consoles.
Anyway, I do hope we take more of these steps in the future. At the very least it reduces ewaste.
I hope at the very least apple can mandate that the additional app stores enforce the same privacy and safety rules, or would the EU consider that allowing people to not be spied on be to much of an infringement of the rights of business?
And yeah, it isn't perfect, but actively making it less secure isn't going make it better
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457
Such a move is basically mutually assured destruction- they would be taking their critical app off the official Apple App Store, and in doing so inviting huge customer backlash. Besides the negative press, at least a fraction of users will not migrate over- both HN power users technical and ideological enough to reject entering a user data harvesting shady app store, and the less technically adept users who can’t figure out how to enable such a store. Not to mention, everyone who is sick and tired of having to manage yet another user account forced upon them by a tech giant. It’s guaranteed that not 100% of existing users would transition, and even if it’s not a huge amount, it would be upsetting the apple cart and damaging the brand.
There’s more considerations beyond that I mentioned previously- the difficulties of these companies now having to create their own parallel iOS app ecosystems- again, ask Facebook how their own platform’s app community is faring these days, let alone every smartphone app market that isn’t iOS or Android.
And it’s debatable that these tech giants can even successfully create a sufficiently compelling alternate app market from a product or business perspective. It feels like all of the giants are at a point where they’re engaged in side projects- cloud gaming, Clubhouse clones, Snapchat stories clones, Libra- that don’t really have staying power, as far as new products go. Creating a parasitic clone iOS App Store would yet be another boondoggle, and committing to it, as I mention, is MAD- Apple loses their apps, and these companies are forever tied to having to maintain and work on their 3rd party app stores. In fact, one can easily imagine a Meta pulling back and resubmitting Facebook, Instagram, etc. back to the official App Store after initially removing them. And it’s incredibly easy to imagine Google resigning an iOS Play Store to the Google Graveyard before you can say Stadia.
Smartphone software has been around a decade now. I don’t think it’s so easy to woo users over with your own carbon copy that offers nothing. Not to mention, perhaps these companies might invite regulator antitrust attention as well if they keep truly “critical apps” away from the official App Store. There’s a lot of possible implications.
I think the prospect of tech giant data-harvesting third party iOS app stores is a fascinating prospect that hasn’t been examined in detail. Too often it’s used as a bogeyman, “Facebook will take away their app and track you!” against sideloading. The reality is probably more complex that that, and I would argue that opening iOS to alternate app marketplaces and sideloading might actually increase business opportunities and vectors of positive innovation for Apple. But that’s the subject of another comment.
Also, I’m uncertain if many of these companies really have that many iOS game exclusives to incentivize this sort of lock in- Epic being a major exception. But most other publishers don’t exactly have big iOS libraries. Most of their apps are more like incidental tie-in material accompanying their actual PC and console titles.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457
One should note that Meta could create their own Android third party store right now, like Amazon has (pretty much only to support their Kindle Fire devices), yet they haven't had any interest in doing so. One could claim that's because Android users don't pay as much for apps as iOS users do, but that's still a lot of users worldwide, and a lot of data that could be tracked. Yet they don't bother to.
So they really don't have a need to do this.
Apple can still make it difficult for them though. They can just remove the forbidden APIs and sandbox apps better. If they do this they don't even have to bother to review as thoroughly anymore.
The big benefit is that Apple no longer gets to decide what type of apps are allowed and what aren't.
Access to your photos, contacts, device identifiers, etc are all gated on sandbox entitlements, and if you remove the App Store review process then you remove the gate the prevents an app from saying "give me read/write access to the whole file system", "give me read/write access to the photos on the device", etc
The OS cannot decide when it should or should not trust the entitlements, because the whole point is that an app has some modicum of trust.
That can be changed of course. They can make it work just like on Android where the user has to give permission for things like filesystem access.
The point of the law is to bring more control away from Apple and to the user.
2) Because apple doesn't want to compete
(I have only dabbled in Android apps, my impression of the Apple situation is very much that, an impression.)
I’d also hope that the store are required to enforce the same security protections as the main App Store.
I don’t want buying an app to now come with the risk of uncancellable subscriptions, gross invasion of privacy, malware, etc
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin...
Also, people forget that iOS itself has many security protections built into the platform itself that go beyond App Store review.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125
Side loading will likely still require a business agreement with Apple and “App Review” to get a cert that allows your app to run.
However it is indeed possible that Apple would weasel such a requirement through the loopholes, yes.
At some point Apple might see itself being split apart because of its constant and well documented abuse of it's status in the market.
This view of Apple as a pure-platform company does not comport with reality
There is no weaseling, it is very simple: the commission covers the licensing. The alternative is saying that apple must develop software, give it away for free, then let random stores make a profit selling software that they contributed nothing to.
It is exactly equivalent to the EU saying that a company should be free to use GPL software however they like, including selling at a profit, without providing the sources.
Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want, because of (a) Fortnite / alt payment options (b) Facebook / privacy restrictions bypass, i.e. the loss of revenue and the loss of credibility as a (sort of) privacy-oriented platform.
So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR.
Also it could lead to a much better ecosystem of open-source apps like there is with F-Droid on Android. It'll take some time to develop but I really love many F-Droid apps over their commercial alternatives. Apps are so much more efficient if they just do what they need to do and don't bother with all the spying and ads.
It could also finally enable other browsers on iOS for real!
I am not sure about this. Who would buy an iphone with the intention to sideload apps if it does not let them install all the apps that the iphone is famous for at the same time? Microsoft allowed users to still use IE (and Office and everything else) after they have been forced to offer other browsers.
I envision a scenario, where you buy a new iphone and selecting/configuring appstores is part of the setup process and can be changed later. As many as you want, just like you would add repos in a package manager.
We would not allow our shopping bags to limit our possible sources of groceries to one specific supermarket chain.
Cross-subsidization is obscuring the true cost of a good and not permitting consumer choice, many people don't want UI revamps and feature rewrites bundled with basic security updates, with the cost hidden in the fees charged to App Store developers and never disclosed to the customer.
Google can give away android because Android is stalkerware that feeds their ad revenue.
It also made a distinction between apps acquired from the Play Store and apps you loaded yourself from outside of it.
At its core, this is a discussion about rent seeking. Apple and Google lust after their 30% cut, which is outrageous and would not be long tolerated in any other business arrangement. They keep the gravy train going because of gatekeeping.
“I want to root/mod my device” and “right to repair” are interesting but orthogonal arguments. Those arguments are about “what does it mean to own a thing”.
I am glad the EU is doing this but I despair that Apple and Google will still avoid this in the US.
Personally, I’m mostly happy with the App Store except their bans based on political POV (disguised as content violations).
I’m much more unhappy with the content stores on mobile devices; I want to set Amazon as my book store and buy within the Kindle app.
Ed s/list/lust/g stupid autocorrect
I think 30% has been ridiculously high although I don’t know what a fairer margin is. For what it’s worth Apple has managed to maintain a 30% profit margin (not just sales) on the hardware they sell which is unheard of in the consumer electronics industry (everyone else is struggling to just barely make money in phones and mostly losing while others are taking a much more modest cut in other categories). Partly it’s branding. Partly it’s savvy business practices. Partly it’s immoral business practices.
> When setting your wholesale price, first multiply your cost of goods by two. This will ensure your wholesale profit margin is at least 50%. Profit margin is the gross profit a retailer earns when an item is sold. Apparel retail brands typically aim for a 30% to 50% wholesale profit margin, while direct-to-consumer retailers aim for a profit margin of 55% to 65%. (A margin is sometimes also referred to as “markup percentage.”)
So 50% is about normal for retail goods. Yes yes. They have physical merchandise they need to manage. Apple has engineers they need to pay to do their virtual distribution. Maybe 30% is excessive. Certainly that they're the only store and hold a monopoly on the things they allow people to do on their platform is probably fueling that margin to be higher than it should. However, if we look at Steam[2] and other console manufacturers, we see similar 30% markups. Maybe everyone is just copying Apple's lead here as "customers will swallow this". Or maybe Apple figured out a good virtual store distribution model and this is the markup needed for a sustainable thriving business.
[1] https://www.shopify.com/retail/product-pricing-for-wholesale... [2] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
1) the majority of apps don’t pay apple a cent because they make their money off selling user information
2) of those that remain most likely aren’t reaching the income point where it stops being 15%
3) 30% matches the payments of every other store, except those stores that don’t pay for any of the platform development. It’s super easy to charge next to nothing when you don’t have to pay actual engineers to make actual products.
* Google, who makes money by harvesting information from every android user; or
* Samsung, etc who don't pay the cost of developing a platform
* Steam, GoG, etc who literally only operate a store front, yet still take 30% cuts. They don't even have significant proportion of free games - and the games that they do have are frequently > $50 so their per-sale absolute revenue is insane.
* The various console platforms, because somehow consoles are magically different from everyone else
* Microsoft (ignoring consoles) who charges for their OS, and despite that seems hell bent on putting ads into the OS
Also basically all Apple’s direct competitors both in the PC and smartphone businesses operate on paltry margins in comparison to Apple. They usually sell a mix of low/high margin products though, e.g. most premium Dell or Lenovo laptops are priced at similar levels to Macbooks (of course their real price might significantly lower due to infinitely better customizability and reparability options). And almost none of them have significant additional revenue streams (not to a degree comparable to Apple). Yet they are still in business.
Apple would be able not to only to survive but to still thrive if they significantly cut their margins and the app store tax. Of course it would not be fair or sensible to expect any company to leave free money on the table. This is why we get ads in Windows, seem like most users dont’t really mind them too much (to be fair I’m not sure I have actually seen one, maybe it’s a windows edition and/or country thing.
Every app in Apple’s App Stores makes them a minimum of 99USD/year, the cost of an Apple Developer account.
Obviously the comparison is slightly Apples to oranges, as physical retailers have massive overheads/COGS that Apple don’t incur for the App Store.
Many developers don't want to have apple be their gatekeeper for apps. They should be able to have alternatives. Apple's rent seeking behaviour is to take platform development in the cost of the device and again to distribute apps without any alternative.
I will accept the argument that apple’s gatekeeping is ridiculous, a lot of that is the bizarre prudishness of the US, but saying that apple should not be compensated at a rate that is generally below the market - the majority of apps on the AppStore are freemium from which apple makes nothing, the remainder are mostly only paying a 15% commission. This is vs 30% or so on game consoles, 30% on steam, etc.
On the other hand, if Apple's model allows them to better compete with others and create a superior product that people want ... well then, it's ridiculous to mandate they should do business a different way.
their business business model allows them to compete because they're rent seeking by grazing off developers and apps that dont want or need their app store, payment processor, etc.
Wow who knew rent seeking was massively profitable, huge surprise!
Isn't that because Apple doesn't allow for third party repos/stores/etc?
If that changes after all (I'm personally hoping it does), then it would make sense that the new alternative store(s) would have their own overheads (development, running costs, etc) and would have their own fees.
That seems sensible, yeah?
Sure. And who cares? That has nothing at all to do with the App Store fees. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
But I assume even those will benefit if Apple has to compete with alternative sources of services. Myself I feel the Apple app store is somewhat inadequate and clumsy to use both for consumers and suppliers. Me and some others around me have this view that it could be done better. Especially the process of publishing your work. It remains a bumpy ride as there is no incentive for them to spend on improving it, people have no other choice than doing it the way Apple dictates, no alternatives. Even as consumer navigating the store it feels pretty much directed into a particular direction others want us to go.
Hopefully those not thinking about using alternative choices will benefit too from the opening up of the infrastructure.