The problem is the choice is taken away from you though. Just like he said with the game market. If you want to play Game A, you go and download/install Game A's publishing app store. If you want to then play Game B, rinse and repeat. You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop. No proof it will/won't either.
As opposed to Developers not having the choice to distribute their own app stores?
There is no solution to this problem that benefits everyone perfectly. There are only solutions which are better than the solution we have today.
Actually, there is one near-perfect solution; Apple reduces their cut to ~5% and stops enforcing their insane rules. But that's not happening.
You, and many others in this thread, are blaming Epic, Steam, Blizzard, etc. That's fundamentally flawed thinking. All of this is Apple's fault. 100%. If the government forces Apple to destroy the UX of iOS, its because of actions Apple took which forced their hand. There are actions Apple could take which would abate this. They aren't taking them. You should not be mad at developers; you should be mad at Apple.
You can’t have both a secure platform and a platform where anyone can arbitrarily run code without a gatekeeper.
Apple is that gatekeeper because I, the user, want them to be. Apple has shown me, as a user, that the trade off they make between giving developers open access and protecting users from malware to be a sane one.
Does it make it harder to monetize an app? Totally, but for many iPhone users, that’s a feature, not a bug. The developers are not apple’s customer, so they’re not building a product around their needs — which we honestly need more of in tech. If I felt more strongly about Apple being a gatekeeper on its own platform, I might use Android in some flavor. But I just want a phone that works and has the apps I want to use without a bunch of garbage cluttering it up.
As a developer I just don’t like the precedent that if I’m too successful at creating a great product that I therefore lose control over the very qualities of my product that made it successful.
This applies to everything though. If I drill of oil and am 'too successful' and abuse my position the Gov cracks down on me. Same if a telco is 'too successful'
And you are forgetting that 'too successful' in these cases is:
literally has billions in profit
uses market position in an anti competitive way
In return for the benefits of living in a modern society, you pay many prices; one of them is a cap on how much influence you are permitted to hold over others.
Remember when you had to rent a telephone from Ma Bell in order to use the phone service that you paid for? Yeah neither do I because the government broke that shit up like they were supposed to.
I bought this iPhone and I can't even run my own programs on it without asking for Apple's permission. This needs to be outlawed yesterday.
All of WHAT is Apple’s fault? Providing a service that consumers want to use and preventing other companies from ruining it?
Telling consumers they should be mad at Apple is absurd. I am not mad at Apple, I am mad at Epic for wasting everyone’s time with this case that they know they will lose, purely to shape public opinion. The judge so far seems to be projecting this is what will happen. I also don’t like relying on regulators to force changes in a market they know little about. Interfering with a successful model that consumers LIKE and WANT into something else does not benefit consumers.
Benefiting other developers is completely irrelevant to the point of antitrust. That’s just corporate welfare.
Apple would be best to lower their rate a bit, clarify certain inconsistent rules, and not abuse the review process, but otherwise I do not want multiple App stores and prefer Apple to regulate their store over the government. I guarantee you there are far more consumers that share this opinion than not. We really could care less what developers are whining about Apple’s policies or retail cut. If you can’t build for iOS at a profit, find something else to do.
The government isn’t going to force a change of the iOS UX, that’s a pipe dream localized to Hacker News and Epic’s board room. Apple isn’t a monopoly by any definition of the term. You could declare them a utility, but that won’t have the effect you expect.
To believe that iOS, a platform with 15% market share, somehow represents the end of platform history that needs government intervention, is the height of lazy thinking. Build a better ecosystem. Apple did it barely 14 years ago when they were a fraction of Microsoft’s size, and everyone said it was impossible.
So your perfect solution is to recreate the mess that's on the PC???
I don't think you understand - we don't want that. That's why people like me, my wife, my kids, my parents, my relatives, and most of my friends buy an iPhone - so we don't have to go through that hell.
The number of people who buy a iphone for sheer simplicity is enormous. My friend's Android has a better camera, a different friend's Android has some cool games that I can't get. But that's OK, and it's my trade-off to make.
If Blizzard really doesn't like Apple, when why don't they fork Android and make their own phone and have a cool backend like Unreal engine running it? They have the resources and the fans to do it. And frankly, it'd probably be really freakin cool.
You think blizzard has the resources, know-how, marketing, and brand recognition to build and successfully launch a phone that competes with the iPhone? That is just short of delusional. You really have no idea what you're talking about. But I'm glad you like the iPhone.
Buying a phone just for a game is the solution instead of actually being able to install whatever you want. Are you even thinking before hitting "reply"?
Which developers are those, exactly? I'd like examples.
Is Apple one of them? The company which disobeys its own App Store rules in the usage of push messages for marking AppleCare, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Fitness, and Apple Arcade? The company which goes beyond this and into marketing these services within the literal Settings app of iOS, an avenue that no other developer has access to?
Is Apple putting the interests of their users "first" by restricting the distribution of cloud game streaming applications without being able to review the individual games within the service? How so? It doesn't put my interests first, and I'm an Apple user!
So, oof, ok, they're putting the interests of the nebulous, general, undefinable "prototypical user" first; not me, naturally, not millions of other users, but some unknown user out there. Though, by serving the interests of this unknown prototypical user, they're actively hurting my interests!
Is Apple putting the interests of users "first" by forcing a 30% tax onto any transaction made in the store? I mean, if one analyzes it with all the critical thinking of a seventh grader, sure. They're protecting their users! From the evil, icky "other" credit card processors like, uh, Visa! and Stripe! Those guys will steal your data... or, uh, I guess they wouldn't, actually they're fine, but then apps could use whatever processors they wanted, including ones which steal your data! I mean, lets ignore that Apple could require developers to use one of a set number of approved safe processors, because jeeze, that would destroy the whole argument, wouldn't want that.
Oh, right, I forgot, Apple is being Fair! They don't want to give special treatment to other payment networks, because then they'd have to pick which ones are safe and show favoritism. There we go, an Unassailable stance. Wait, but... Apple only enforces the IAP Framework requirement for Digital purchases... plenty of apps use whatever payment processor they want, including bad ones, as long as its for Physical goods. Weird... and didn't Apple give Amazon special treatment with Prime Video, for Digital goods, allowing them to bypass the IAP Framework? That's right, they did do that...
Jeeze, this is looking pretty bad for Apple. I mean, they're the ones making the rules, and they can't even operate in a position where the Nebulous and Undefinable Interests of Unknown and Uncountable Users is put "first". What hope does anyone else have?
Except, maybe, just maybe, their hope lies in not treating users like babies who need a nanny to make rules in the first place. I know, its crazy, but hear me out: there was that one time I was drinking from my bottle and the nipple fell off and I split milk everywhere, it was such a mess, my mommy was so mad! But, I'm still here. Growing. Learning. Making dumb, shitty comments on the internet. Capable of (most of the time) acting like an adult and making my own decisions. I'm capable of deciding for myself whether something is Safe, whether I want to take the risk, and hedging myself and my interests when those risks turn sour. Every human is. We can't operate in a nursery for our entire lives and expect to grow as people, or even as a species.
There is so much more that iPhones, and mobile computing in general, are capable of; so lets go do it, and lets not pay Apple 30% and deal with their App Review Team in the process. Because I already paid them fair and square for the phone. That should be enough.
You have the choice to not go play a game if it isn't on a platform that you want to install.
This is somewhat similar to "I don't want to buy an XBox just to play this one game". Of course the barrier there is often a monetary cost. The software platforms are free to download so there's no real barrier.
But for instance, I don't particularly like Epic Games attitude around buying exclusives so I don't use their store. I have missed out on some games I might have enjoyed as a result, but I still have lots to play elsewhere.
You have the choice to not use iOS and not use the Apple App Store. You might not like Apple’s attitude around their operation of the App Store so you don’t use their devices. You might have missed some great apps, but there are still many great alternatives on Android.
So it's either a choice between "not running some specific game/app whose publisher made their own app store" and "not running any iOS app because my only option is to not have an iPhone"?
No, your freedom of choice is only one level deep. You can either choose iOS, which includes 'runs only apple-approved software', or choose any other OS which runs other software.
This is basically the right to repair / right to do whatever you want with your device debate. You can't force Apple to program the functionality for running other people's code into iOS, but it's legal if you figure out how. This is exactly what went down in 2010 with Cydia [0] - it's fair use to modify your own device, but that doesn't compel apple to make it easy to do so[1].
Nitpick: that exemption is from 2010. The DMCA mandates an exemption be granted every three years for something. Meaning: in 2013, that exemption was gone unless it was exempted again. And again in 2016. And again in 2019. And so on. The DMCA does not include an “exempt once, exempt forever” clause, sadly.
Thankfully, we’ve had the EFF to campaign for exemptions, but it’s frustrating having to go through the whole ordeal every three years because Congress can’t be arsed to fix it.
17 U.S. Code §1201(a)(1)(C)[0]:
> (C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine—
(followed by a list of things the Librarian will consider)
We have more choice today, because currently Android and iOS have different models. Break up the App Store and your left with a single model.
What nobody is talking about is Epic could completely avoid the premium their complaining about by using a website for all transactions. Just like the Kindle App or Netflix etc. The only thing they get from this lawsuit is in app micro transactions. As such it’s really a question of business models not consumer choice.
Reading Apple's policy makes it seem not so simple. Netflix, for example, avoids the cost because it is a subscription service which is specifically excluded from having a cut taken out. I can't speak for Kindle, but when I very recently read over this it was clear that just routing to a site to handle the purchase would not be sufficient to bypass this
> which is specifically excluded from having a cut taken out.
Netflix is constantly at odds with Apple. You can't subscribe via the iOS app store and they don't even link to the Netflix website due to Apple's rules and how they want their 30% cut for app store-driven traffic.
There doesn't need to be constant news about Netflix changing stuff, they still don't like Apple's rules about it and there are still no links to netflix.com in the app.
> Trying to join Netflix?
>
> You can't sign up for Netflix in the app. We know it's a hassle.
And likely Netflix et al were grandfathered in because Apple _couldn't_ strongarm them. If Netflix was invented post AppStore, I'd wager that Apple would have them paying Apple taxes regardless.
> What nobody is talking about is Epic could completely avoid the premium their complaining about by using a website for all transactions.
Epic would also need all paid transactions to originate entirely from said website - i.e. there would be no ability for their own apps to even send users to that website. There have been multiple horror stories about app developers trying this exact approach and Apple turning around with "nope, pay up your 30% cut".
> We have more choice today, because currently Android and iOS have different models. Break up the App Store and your left with a single model
What a goofy point of view.
If there are two restaurants in town, and only one grocery store, would you conclude that eating out is better than cooking your own meals because you have two restaurant options instead of just the one grocery store?
Why is more choice necessarily good, besides simplified theory about capitalism? Brands have built their entire success off of providing less choice to consumers and they, in general seem to be successful. See Apple and Trader Joe's.
Choice is good when there's direct competition. Companies will compete to have better app stores if I can choose which app store I want to use. I as a consumer will get to choose what games I want to play. It's bad for me as a consumer that I also have to choose which app store I'm using to download that game.
Also both things can be bad, but I personally feel that the model where people like Apple due to the "ecosystem" seems to have worked pretty well for a lot of consumers. I don't think "more choice" is a good metric here at all because it's false. I don't care about having more choice in app stores(and I'm not getting to chose which app store I use under either model anyway), I care about my choice of apps. Which isn't really changing, companies will get their product to consumers.
Imagine the same choice on a PC.
Microsoft doesn't allow a ceeatin software just switch to MacOS or Linux.
All the software you previously bought is useless and you have to buy it again.
So because multiple AppStores is too much of hassle you need to keep multiple smartphones or buy the same software twice.
Considering the tight integration of the OS and the hardware, I would offer the comparison that it's more like a CPU not allowing any code that's not signed by Intel to run. Or, more aptly, only allowing one specific OS to run on their CPU and that OS has a restrictive policy on application usage.
Sure, you could go with AMD but does having other choices excuse a company? It certainly violates the spirit of anti-trust laws. Apple makes and controls 46% of all the mobile devices in the US. The nearest competitor is Samsung, who makes 25%.
If Apple allowed other OS's to operate on their phone, then they could say "If you don't like our integrated app store policies and policy of not allowing other app stores, use a different OS". But until they do that, the OS and the hardware have to be seen as one thing.
Apple makes and controls 46% of all the mobile devices in the US because their methodology for designing, building, distributing and iterating on the product is successful. Consumer satisfaction, retention and growth are bi-products of this success. Apple doesn't play mean tricks to gain market share. They simply build great products, invest more in innovation (CPUs) to continue making great products. The m1 chip shows this. You can't pick apart what Apple does and give it some attribute/feature of an ecosystem model. Right now the market is Apple vs. ecosystem. Consumers have choice to buy from Apple, or buy from an ecosystem. We should focus less on trying to handicap Apple and start figuring out how a leader in the ecosystem can rise above it to compete with Apple head on.
It's not so simple. Because Apple hardware and software are closely interwoven it's hard to change to another brand.
Most of the software and accessories only works with Apple hardware and software so if you change you have to make rather large expenses to keep the previous status quo.
I.e. even if you are unhappy, for some it is simply too expensive to switch to another brand.
But this is true for the game console market in the comment I originally replied to. When you buy a game you are locked in, you can't put your Halo disk in a playstation or transfer your Nintendo store purchases to Xbox. If you have an Xbox and all your friends load up on Playstation, its going to be a significant cost to get the new console and library you want to play multiplayer with them. For some reason people care more now that its a phone than a game console.
There are alternative stores for the same game on the desktop. A trivial example is that some games can be installed directly by downloading a file from the developer, or via Humble Bundle, GOG or Steam.
So this business model is possible. And it's the friendliest to end users, too.
But a number of high-profile publishers (Rockstar, Ubisoft, EA) force you to use their app platform even if you purchased the game on Steam. I bought Far Cry 5 on Steam, and running it first launches Ubisoft's launcher, which usually needs to update (why????), then I can launch the game. GTA Online freebie in Epic Store, first has to start Rockstar Social Club (which also usually needs to update), then finally runs the game. FIFA on Steam forces Origin, and so on.
It's a lot easier to deal with if you use a game launcher like Playnite, or should I say a launcher launcher, but with the rigarmarole you have to go through just to start one game suddenly your launcher launcher is now a launcher launcher launcher.
At this point I barely play anymore. Because with all the intermediate updates and transient failures, it takes longer to start the game than the time you would spend casually playing during a week evening.
The problem referenced by the GP is worse on consoles in my experience. Did the system software get updated today? Well, no network features for you until you download it.
What about that video streaming app? Well, there's a new version, so you have to download that right now or you can't watch. Oh, and we logged you out. Get out your phone or computer and type in this link. Then log in there and type this code. Make sure you enable all javascript because otherwise this won't work. Also, there will be an awkward pause after the computer tells you you've activated where the console won't indicate the same and you'll wonder if it even worked.
Granted, some consoles handle this better than others.
The situation degraded so far that it actually gives me a benefit. Ubisoft and EA now offer cheap subscriptions, so I never actually have to buy a game from them again; I just pay a low price once a year for a month or two of access. Why wait for Assassins' Creed: Valhalla at 75% off when I can play it now for less (and it is still cheaper in the rare cases I want to play something a second time). EA even seem to be getting in bed with Microsoft, with the XBox for PC premium subscription thing gaining EA access, so I expect that platform may actually die sooner rather than later and get folded into XBox (which seems to use the built in Windows store distribution). I really can't fathom how the divisions at the big companies running these stores can justify their existence, where trying to maximize their share of the market appears to just be driving it into the ground.
I think its actually driven by marketing wanting to control messaging over their channel. Having little more than tiny little text and picture boxes to try and sell you stuff probably drives them nuts
Many standalone downloads in fact come with the publisher app store. Thay must runs in order to start the game. The end result is the same. And the store will update the game anyways, often re-downloading the equivalent of half the game (we are talking 50GB scale here).
Sometimes you can use another publisher app store. Which will in fact start another app store upon starting the game. In turn starting the game. And the game itself will also ask you for a game studio account. So you need 2 app store and 3 account to play the game. And I am talking about single player game here.
> Sometimes you can use another publisher app store. Which will in fact start another app store upon starting the game.
Not saying this doesn't ever happen, but I've used Steam for more than a decade now and not once have I seen that happen, ever.
Yes, some games have separate launchers, and yes, sometimes these have support for their own separate accounts and mod loaders and such, but not once have they actually been full-blown alternative app stores.
I don't buy very many modern AAA titles, though, so that might be part of it. Still, of the ones I do buy, none of them have installed some alternative store.
Like so much else in PC gaming, they do so because customers don't have a choice. If I want to play The Division with my friends, I have to put up with an extra launcher.
If it bothers you enough, then don't play the division?
I actively avoid and don't buy/play games that require Origin or Uplay. Even when friends tell me about free games in Origin I don't give a fuck. And I'm a very active gamer.
You do have a choice. There are tons of awesome games out there.
Many games are exclusive to the Epic launcher, or Origins, or Uplay. Many games are multiplayer are require logging into the above launchers even if theoretically you could somehow separate the game itself.
The entity that makes Game A has a choice where the app is sold. So, for Example, EA sells games on Origin but also Steam. There are lots of apps that are in many stores.
On an iOS device, the entity that makes the app has no choice of what store to be in, they must be in Apple's. That is a monopoly.
As many have pointed out, if you only want to get your apps from one store-- like Apple's-- you could chose that. But currently you can't choose to use another app vendor.
Of course you can. But the parent comment doesn’t put forward any argument for why they think that’s happening. They’re just saying Apple has a monopoly over Apple customers. Which is more of a truism rather than anything insightful.
I think it is safe to say that if Apple allowed another company to offer an app store, even using all the same screening and security protocols Apple does, they would take a lower cut of app revenue. I believe that is what bothers Epic. If they don't like the cut Valve demands they can make their own store on Windows, and they do.
Argument for why is that happening: So Apple can make more money.
Well I don’t think that’s supported by the data, because they can do that on android, and Epic is suing Google too.
You’re also framing the market in an arbitrary way to support your conclusions. Every company could be said to have a monopoly over their own customers. Any argument that Apple monopolizes Apple customer, or that Google monopolizes Play Store customers could also be used to say Valve monopolizes Valve customers, or Sony monopolizes PlayStation customers, or that Samsung monopolizes the market of Samsung smart fridge customers.
You need a lot more than just that to make a compelling argument that the behaviour is illegally anti-competitive.
You can side load an Epic on to a Android app, that is true, but that is not the same as being able to buy it from a store on an Android device.
Amazon and other vendors have forked Android so that they can put there own store on it. Google does not open up its API enough that you can have the same functionality as the Google Play Store. I think you understand what I am saying, but just in case, it's really different than what you can do on Windows, Linux, MacOS.
I agree you can't have a monopoly by "customers". That's why I don't think Valve has a monopoly. PC users can can and do install games other ways. On the other hand, by my logic, Nintendo does have a monopoly on Switch users and PlayStation does have a monopoly on PlayStation owners. I think it matters a lot less in those cases because they aren't as ubiquitous as phones. In the US, Apple is 60% of the market, which is way past what the US used to define as a monopoly.
I am guessing you don't agree and don't think that is a problem. But I think I understand your point and respect the different point of view.
> You can side load an Epic on to a Android app, that is true, but that is not the same as being able to buy it from a store on an Android device.
I think this reframes the issue even further. This changes the claim to being that they're anti-competitive by simply not distributing the competing software themselves. The typical workflow for downloading software on a PC is go to website > download software > install software. The typical workflow for "sideloading" an app is go to website > download software > install software.
I would suggest the reason consumers are inhibited from downloading alternative app stores is because they don't trust apps they've downloaded from alternative locations (you could say the security warnings are anti-competitive, but MacOS and Windows have similar warnings when installing software downloaded from the internet, and they don't seem to generate the same accusations). But in any case, the complaint "consumers trust Google, but they don't trust me, and that's not fair" is not a reasonable basis for a lawsuit.
If EA win their fight, I can't really see them offering their app on the Apple App Store.
So, really what this is about is choice for the big app-manufacturers, including games. It has nothing to do with user choice at all, and the cost is borne by the user (who has a far shittier user-experience than they do now).
If that choice of app store actually matters to you, then you have the option to choose an Android phone instead of an iPhone. You're not being relegated to some obscure platform with no app support like people who didn't want to use Wintel in the '00s.
Google Play Store's revenue is half of that of the Apple App Store, so choosing only Android instead of both platforms would cut the expected app revenue by about two-thirds. Google also has similar app tax policies to Apple (and there is an ongoing lawsuit by Epic against them), so they really are relegated to the more obscure app stores.
That's because Apple's app store has better quality apps due to curation. The minute iPhones are opened up, the value of the App Store will tank considerably, and many devs on here will be up in arms, complaining about all the flood of free apps that have destroyed their market.
The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.
I do not agree that the revenue is necessarily because of higher-quality apps. Apple iPhones are regarded in many markets as luxury goods bought by people with more disposable income, so the increased revenue could well be attributable to having a wealthier customer base that is willing to spend more on app/in-app purchases. In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers.
App Store does help developers make more money than if they were not on it, but being on it is the only practical way for them to gain access to iPhone users (they could ask users to jailbreak their phones instead but that is impractical for most). If the courts order Apple to allow competing app stores, users would still benefit from Apple's curation, and developers would still benefit from the distribution by using Apple App Store, but they would have a viable choice of picking another app store without having to change to another OS (for users) or abandoning the largest market (for developers).
Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them. If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay.
> In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers.
Only true if the 50% revenue increase disappears (Which is likely with a flood of free apps). Not only that, but more free apps = more privacy violations.
> App Store does help.....
So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? There is no demonstrable harm. The small apps got a cut on the fee earlier this year. Now it's just megacorps trying to get as much of the pie as they can, in a way that hurts consumers.
Also allowing 3rd party applications to control critical features is a privacy/security issue I haven't seen addressed.
> Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them.
That is not a sure thing. Having a wealthier customer base could be as much or even bigger a reason for the higher revenue. And curated apps still have to compete with each other.
> If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay.
If this were really the case, it would actually be an argument for increased competition because it would be better for the consumers. However, I do not think that it is true because almost 93% of apps in the App Store are already free.[1] So the 100% revenue difference probably would not disappear. And free apps would have to follow Apple's privacy rules, as they do now.
> So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem?
Of course it is a net benefit. Even if overall fees were 99%, it would still be a net benefit to both consumers and developers because retaining 1% is still better than nothing for developers, and having a software repository is very valuable for users. No-one is suggesting shutting down the App Store. What is being suggested is for Apple to allow other firms to compete against it, because they control almost two-thirds of the market by revenue and can dictate the terms to the participants.
> There is no demonstrable harm.
That is for Epic to prove. They would try to demonstrate that they suffered harm after violating App Store terms by offering a competing payment method, and that it is anti-competitive for Apple to eject Epic's app, given its market position. Regulators would also have their own methods of determining whether harm occurred.
A fair portion as well is that Apple takes paid/subscription apps on the store more seriously. Apple believes people should be willing to pay money for things (since Apple sells products) and Google believes people want advertising-supported free content (because that is _their_ business model).
> Apple takes paid/subscription apps on the store more seriously
I understand what you wrote about the two companies' motivations but what do you mean when you write that Apple takes paid apps more seriously? What app store policy differences are you thinking of, for example, between Apple and Google, that suggest a more serious attitude?
I think users would stop benefiting as soon as some critical service they use like Gmail or Instagram moves to one of these third party app stores to avoid Apple's increasingly aggressive privacy requirements.
I wasn't talking about developer choice, I was talking about end user choice. Given that statistic, I think it is pretty obvious that we as developers stand to make more money on iOS than Android regardless of Apple's 30% cut.
There are a few reasons for the discrepancy though. Someone else already mentioned the higher average quality of apps on the App Store.
One facet is the difficulty involved in pirating iOS apps compared to Android, likely because Apple makes sideloading so difficult. Pretty much any kid can spend 20 minutes searching around on Google and figure out how to get paid games for free on their phone.
Another variable is average user affluence. Apple is popular in developed countries with sizable middle class populations, and they position themselves as more of a luxury brand. Android devices run the gamut from ultra premium to ultra budget, catering to user in every socioeconomic class. Apple users on average probably have more spare cash to spend on apps.
> You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop.
You're only forced to use stuff when you're in the small minority that cares about not using stuff. Moxie Marlinspike explained it perfectly in his DEF CON 18 keynote.
Thing is, I don't think there's any conclusive proof that the majority of customer would be okay with what you're describing.
Most of us on PC are getting along just fine with one or two game launchers. I'm using GOG and Steam. My kid uses Steam and Epic.
When Funcom tried adding their own launcher for Conan Exiles, the vast majority of players berated them so hard on their forums that they removed it.
There are plenty of cross-store games on PC. And even if some games end up being exclusive you might still benefit as a player thanks to the competition. If Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue.
It's also a very good thing for game devs who aren't at the mercy of the whims of a single company. Steam no longer wants to work with you? Go to GOG, Epic or even self-publish.
> Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue.
This is demonstrably not true. Epic's launcher has been a laughing stock since it was announced.
* It only recently got any form of Achievements (that are completely undiscoverable)
* It has no way to join a party with your friends. I think it has Friends support but am not sure because you can't do anything at all with your Friends so I never even look.
* Half the time their UI elements don't work (I just went into the "Troubleshoot" section and the back button doesn't work, so I had to close the whole window and start over)
* There are no user reviews of games
* Their store and library sorting is a mess that makes it difficult to find anything
* They launched without even having cloud save support
Epic's game store is underpowered, buggy, and miserable to use - and plenty of companies still do exclusive deals with them because Epic holds a bag of gold in front of their face. They even do it when it breaks their own promises, like when IOI decided to launch Hitman 3 after promising they'd import Hitman 2 purchases - and then apparently totally forgot that Hitman 1 and 2 were on Steam and Hitman 3 was on Epic, so while XBox and Playstation users got their levels migrated on day one PC users are still out of luck a month later.
I heard all about that but I really don't think it matters all that much for the vast majority of players. People who are really active in video game communities are indeed likely to be annoyed at this and loudly complain online, but I'm sure the vast majority of casual players won't care massively about any of this. In particular all the online features. I'm in my 30s, do you realize how hard it is to schedule anything with my friends?
Paying for exclusives is a bit of a bummer but game development is pretty damn competitive as it is, Epic injecting a lot of money to secure exclusives might actually do some good for indie devs.
In my experience most of these exclusivity deals are temporary anyway, so you just have to wait 6 months to a year to get it on your store of choice. That's a fair compromise IMO, especially since nobody bothers to release finished games anymore anyway, so you might as well get the finished version on Steam on sale a year later.
None of those sounds like a very bad user experience. A very bad experience is games disppearing different games appearing after purchasing something else, games not working, memory usage too high..etc
No user reviews, no easy help button for noobs, no cloud save, only recently got achievements, can't crush a friends party. all sound like little nice to haves that don't add much value. Does it allow me to find/play the game? Everything else takes time away from playing.
Then, no offense, but you might not understand the market very well. Achievements and friends are table stakes these days. Games are primarily a multiplayer experience with friends so platforms absolutely need those things before locking games as exclusives.
This would be like shipping an OS without internet access to end-users.
It likely depends on your friends or the games you play. I don't think my friends care to know that I am playing the Witcher, Cyberpunk, Battletech, Mechwarrior, or Jotun. Friends might care to know that I'm online, and be able to message me, but to be honest Discord or other social networks (Steam, Blizzard) already cover that. I've actually been quite happy with GOG's interface, for example.
Hmm, maybe achievements aren't as popular as I once believed, but I do think there's unnecessary friction to joining a friend's game with Epic's half baked model. It's one of those things that nobody notices until it's missing.
I'm not saying you need a full social network on every platform, either.
An OS doesn't ship with internet access. You may get internet as a separate service later and connect it to your computer which has an OS.
I'm not sure you understand the market. If saving to the cloud is a must have feature your game will provide it. Ditto for multiplayer. No one is refusing to play a game because the platform you purchased the game on doesn't have an easy help button.
Is all of that really a problem when the companies seem to have shown that none of that matters? The increased cut is apparently more valuable to them.
And I also should note, half of those items don't need to implemented in a store. People ask for them because they are implemented as extras in other stores, but strictly speaking the distribution and support are the only things the store needs to have to be called a store. Achievements, friend lists, user reviews, and cloud saves can be provided by separate services and work just as well, and could result in a higher cut for the vendors if the store doesn't have to shelter the cost for that.
That sounds like the same class of argument as "all an operating system needs to provide is process scheduling and hardware access". It doesn't match user expectations and it certainly isn't a good user experience. Having to sign into a different account for every game to get basic functionality is a nightmare. Users want to purchase a game from a store, install it, play it, and have everything work. That's it - no other configuration or connections required.
The answer to that isn't putting all stores but one out of business, it's having a single-sign-on provider.
Also, I doubt you would criticize an embedded OS for only having process scheduling and hardware access, because that's probably all it was designed to do. Similarly, a low-cost store may want to skip on providing all those extra features so they can keep prices down.
Epic DOES offer a terrible experience, especially on Mac. It crashes ALL the time. It's terribly slow. It regularly consumes over 50% of available Ram and CPU. It still has exclusives and it's the only place I can get Unreal Engine if I want it. The PC game market is a prime example of how this common knowledge not being true at all for consumers. A couple of years ago steam was really the App Store for games and the user experience was far better. Now it's the worst it's been ever. Gog, UPlay Connect, Origin, Steam, Epic Game store etc... All with exclusives, all with massive privacy issues, all worse for consumer's.
The only way to truly improve it for consumer is to require that all platform's be open source. That I could get behind but it will never happen.
App store monopolies have not meaningfully hindered this.
To your first example: Most malware infections on PCs today are distributed by the Chrome Web Store. (Preventing malicious extensions was Google's excuse for blocking third party install... but since they don't even attempt to control malware they distribute first party, it's hilarious.) If they tell you they have a virus, open their Chrome extensions tab, remove everything, and you're good.
If anything, centralized app stores magnify the problem: By making every single app submitted look like it's coming from a reputable source. If app stores did any realistic good job at policing malware, instead of focusing on policing their revenue tax, they might be a benefit.
But again, malicious apps can have millions of installs and nobody does anything about it. Epic decides to charge 18% less and circumvent Google and Apple's taxation, and they act in less than 12 hours.
App stores do hinder this when they are resonably well moderated. Google makes almost no effort to do this. The extension markets for Firefox and Safari are comparatively malware-free next to the Chrome extension store.
Indeed, the problem is scale. Companies like Google and Apple end up employing cheap, low quality labor to review apps and extensions instead of high quality technical personnel.
Bear in mind, if Google and Apple had to compete in this aspect, it's possible users would actually choose and prefer a third party store with better curation. So they'd have an incentive to improve their review processes.
Apple's own store proves this incorrect. Apple's App Store has VERY few instance's of Malware (at least in the sense of exploiting security issues). The App Store does have an ongoing issue with dark patterns and subscription fraud, no doubt but in general Apple's App Store is the by far the best and safest App Store for consumer. I'm an app developer and the App Store has more than it's share of issues like discovery and subscription fraud but ALL of those issues are worse on other more "open" platforms.
There are a lot of non-technical requirements for the Apple App Store, for instance on what an application can do with bluetooth, local networking, contacts, photos, and location data - even after the user gives access approval for them.
Another great example is the target of the Apple/Facebook spat currently - Apple has not just said that the developer needs to go through the OS-dialog approval to use the IDFA (identifier for advertising) to track users, but to do _any_ cross-organizational tracking, including using mechanisms that Apple does not have technical protections for.
Apple developer accounts involve real-world identity verification, so that (hopefully) abuse results in an actual ban of the company and people rather than just of a throwaway account.
> (from parent) need their App Store running in order to play their games
This is the real UX problem.
I have no problem buying from a variety of stores. I do that in real life. Most required (pre-Covid) me to walk in each of their doors.
What's a problem is requiring the installed & running presence of a particular App Store to run an app.
If I legally purchased something, why is a particular App Store even still required? If I want to re-install (new device) then I can download it again?
If we're talking updates... I'm happy to forgo update pushing. And renting software with subscriptions just needs to die.
Microsoft, EA and Ubisoft eventually caved in and offer their games also on Steam.
EGS "exclusives" are usually timed exclusives. You wait half a year or so, and get a more stable, better optimized and usually also cheaper version on Steam too. If you want to play an EGS exclusive game immediately, installing EGS isn't a big deal either.
So far, having multiple competing app stores on PC has been a win both for users and developers. Choice is always a good thing.
Meh - eventually things work out for the best of the consumers most of the time - for eg. epic game store just gave a bunch of titles free no strings attached a while ago, EA store used to have free stuff as well.
End of the day you have to have enough value to get people to inconvenience themselves - I'd rather that this value gets shelled out to users as enticement to install some app store than Apple capturing that money simply because their store is the only one allowed to exist on the platform.
The App Store is good because it is closed and curated. That's a main driver of the product experience. Removing the App Store irrecoverably damages the iPhone - a curated, non-malware infested, high quality phone with a consistent experience.
I have yet to see any argument how the App Store harms consumers. It helps developers make more money (Play Store revenue is half that of the App store's apps), it helps consumers stay protected from malware infested applications and is easy to use.
Where, exactly, is the harm? Now Epic with their gambling games will be able to rip off kids even more in their own store? Fantastic.
Lol the framing is ridiculous - Apple had nothing against ripping off gambling kids as long as they were getting their 30% cut so please cut the fanboy crap.
Apple is using it's market position and it's leading to inefficient pricing. I guarantee you if Apple was forced to allow other payment methods on their store that their % cut would go down because the convenience they offer is not worth 30%.
And App Store can be as curated as they want if they provide the hooks to allow third party stores and app deployments.
I generally agree that you have the device choice - but considering the size of this market and Apple market position this is a right place for regulators to step in and fix the market inefficiency - just like the Windows/IE thing. And while they are at it they should probably look at digital store policies in general to prevent this kind of thing, Google isn't much better than Apple and they keep bundling stuff with the phone as well.
Not an apple fanboy, please argue on merit, else I won't continue.
Apple isn't ripping off anyone. They're taking their cut of sales based off the value of providing access to a high paying market that has a non-negligible cost. The point is - Epic is not doing this "for the market." They're doing it because they want more money for themselves - which is fair, but they are using a service which provides them revenue. That should not be free. For that matter, they have a monopoly over their store as well - should they have to allow third party "VBucks" stores? It's absurd.
> Apple is using it's market position.....
It clearly is worth that, in fact, probably much more - others on this thread that support your POV have said the App Store generates twice the revenue of Android. It's not just the convenience - it simply makes devs more money. Cutting the app store will tank developer value instantly. Developers will lose big time in this event. There will be many on here that will begin to complain as their salary dips. Also apple already cut the fee for smaller apps. So what's the real problem? I have yet to see any tangible evidence of consumer harm.
> And App Store can be as curated.....
That opens the door for malware and a poor customer experience. I can see my mom now being tricked into downloading a privacy invading app. my dad's android is a nightmare. It destroys the product.
> I generally agree that you have the device choice....
There isn't market inefficiency. It's hard to argue monopoly of a company that has 20% of the market. The IE/Windows debate is far different. Both DOMINATED the market. This simply isn't true in this case.
The fact is every time this comes up on HN people just hate Apple, but never look at the actual merit of the arguments. It isn't a monopoly (less than 20% global marketshare), its fees aren't exorbitant based on the value it provides developers, and end consumers get a clean, relatively safe experience. No one is losing, except megacorps like Epic who want to make a little more money.
> Except in the real world when we see games offered in multiple places (e.g. Steam and the Epic Game Store) they are usually the same price.
Is that really true? Legitimate Steam keys are sold by stores other than Valve's Steam store, such as Humble Bundle, Green Man Gaming and Fanatical.
I shop at multiple stores that sell Steam keys, and I would say that I only buy less than 1/3rd of my games from Steam directly, due to heavy discounts via bundling and other sales at various online game stores. I find that the alternate "Steam" stores have sales more often than the official Steam store does.
As someone mentioned in another comment, this is the result of yet another monopolistic practice, this time by Steam who requires your game to be priced the same in all stores else it will be removed from Steam.
They'd be cutting themselves out of other stores if they did that. Stores like Steam require that your game is sold at the same price across all stores otherwise it will be removed from Steam.
Even assuming the only reason App Store revenue is that high is because of the store itself, we shouldn't treat the policies as one indivisible work set in stone.
You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps.
People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too.
> You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps.
It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%.
More than fair? Okay then, tell me what percent is fair.
> People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too.
The problem is not that they make money, it's that they are engineering a lack of competition in order to keep their prices arbitrarily high.
> It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%.
Charging a significant percentage for "providing access to users" is rent-seeking. That's not a good thing.
There is no choice being taken away - you don't have a choice at this point - you must use "the" App Store whether you like it or not.
Maybe the Apple App Store can get it's shit together and present a less hostile environment so these companies are able/willing to distribute on the Apple App Store again, and then you'll actually have a choice.
No, you buy the phone hardware and a license to use iOS. The App Store is a service provided by Apple that you should have a choice to use or not. The Apple Tax is what you're 'buying' from Apple when using the App Store service.
This is not accurate. I never "buy" a license explicitly. I buy the phone explicitly.
I can't "buy" iOS and put it on any phone. The phone and software are inextricably linked. It is one product.
> The App Store is a service provided by Apple that you should have a choice to use or not. The Apple Tax is what you're 'buying' from Apple when using the App Store service.
You can extend this to any level. This is like complaining "I don't want to use Amazon to buy things on Amazon.com"
My understanding and usage of a "walled garden" is to mean a closed ecosystem. By definition it no longer exists if Epic wins.
Continuing the analogy: Some people want a walled garden to keep their kids safe, but your suggesting to remove the walls and just advice kids to stay on the lawn instead.
I recognize the fact that the argument is exactly the same as for not opening up the appstore in the first place. But the importance and scope of it is less if the store is open.
Now you can chose to buy en expensive device (or you did in the past and can't de-apple due to lock-in) or not. In the future you could chose not to buy photoshop because of their insistence on their app store dependency.
I think having a more granular choice is good. Like I said, that UX hit, imo, is less important than the monopolistic behavior displayed now:
The apple "tax" (including the rules around links to donation pages and similar nonsense). Curation that cannot be overridden by end-users. Unpredictable policy changes for developers. 1st party appropriation of successful independent applications. Unfair competing (think browser javascript engines).
I think bad UX is less important than those things listed above, that's the argument.
I think EA created a game store because it feels parasitic that Valve could take 30% of your sells, why not make your own store and keep the 30% .
What I would do is force EA to put their games on all stores, then on their own store they can give you a 25% discount because they don't have to pay the tax. Then people could decide if they want store A, B or C version.
If the store tax would be low enough there would not be such a pressure from the giant publishers to avoid the store, as a person that don't like giants I hope that this giants fighting each other will benefit us by breaking the monopolies and ensuring that all stores will play by fair rules and respect all consumer rights.
It's not parasitic of Valve, though. Valve created the storefront and platform that has all of those customers baked into it. EA is not just paying 30% for the privilege of selling their game, they're paying for the customer base that they haven't had to work to establish on that platform.
I will disagree, you can see the entitlement of users that demand the game,movie or payment system must be exactly his preferred one. Though for Valve you can compete with them (but people hate it but I think they don't hate the actual competition but the shitty implementation of the stores and the fact this game launcher most of the time must be run in background ) BUT with Apple you can't compete, they have up to 50% market share in some countries and if you are a business half of your existing customers(that you earned fairly and were not gifted by Apple to you) will ask for an iOS app and now you either give a bad experience to your customer or you pay the tax.
About the argument that Apple,Valve gives you access to many users, sure that should be price correctly, developers could pay for getting promoted on the first page of the store, but Apple,Google should not get a cut for promoting my app if the user installed it starting from my own website.
It isn't entitlement for consumers to look at a company saying "you can buy this game, but only on our own launcher/storefront" and say "okay, then I won't buy it". Users don't like juggling Steam, Origin, Uplay, Epic, and whatever other launchers/storefronts. If publishers feel the additional sales are important, they can make it available through Steam.
I don't think there is any sane user that will say something as stupid like "I wish Cool Game 3 would be only on Origin(or only on Steam). So we should try to get most games on all stores not try to get them only on our facorite store.
The issue with the launchers is indeed a problem, the solution is to have the games run without the shitty launcher. So if you want to buy and play a game you can open your browser, find the best deal, buy the game and if you want do a direct download and play, or use a launcher, install the game then kill the launcher and play the game. This is the GOG model, you don't need the launcher.
So IMO the launcher issue should be addressed by fixing it, not by praying that there will be no competition in future so only my favorite launcher will exist.
I'm not sure what you're arguing because it sounds like you agree with the parent. The games should be available on Origin and Steam and people should be able to choose the one they want. That's the whole issue, though.
Case in point, I bought DooM Eternal's Collector's Edition. I could not use Steam and had to activate the game through the Bethesda launcher. I can add the game to my Steam library as an "external" game but I can't play with my list of Steam friends or use the matchmaking tools built into Steam. I had to use Bethesda's platform and we, essentially, had to re-do all the connections and friends lists to duplicate them in Bethesda. I would have preferred not to do that. You may even be able to do that now but it was not an option at launch.
Sorry If I was not clear, I see some people commenting that they like Steam so Epic, Origin and others are evil and should not exists. My point is that we should wish they exist and compete and that games would be available on all of them so you can chose and would also be great if the launchers would also be optional like GOG.
Also today there are many examples of PC players playing together with console players so there is no technical reason why someone that uses Steam should not be able to play multiplayer game with someone that bought on GOG or PlayStation Store.
>there is no technical reason why someone that uses Steam should not be able to play multiplayer game with someone that bought on GOG or PlayStation Store.
Exactly. Yet these limitations exist. That's why people should vote with their wallets and not support games that artificially limit this and why, if people want phones that don't have walled gardens, they shouldn't buy an Apple product.
But still countries or EU are in their right to demands Apple to do stuff even if free market fanboys don't like it, there are many examples where banks,telecom, fuel or tech giants were forced to do stuff they did not like.
I agree people should vote with their money but also not ignore the actual voting, and demand that we pass laws in favor of the people. Americans could keep their locked iPhones and EU could have a law where a user would have the freedom to get his device rooted.
>BUT with Apple you can't compete, they have up to 50% market share in some countries
That statement isn't true no matter how you slice it. Apple's largest competitor is Google so the idea that you can't compete with Apple is nonsense. And what countries does Apple have a 50% market share in?
US, mobile market , ask Apple fanbous about app sales and they will proudly tell you how Apple stores has more sales.
Ask same guys about monopoly and they will then count the entire world, count all computers and dumb-phones and pretend Apple is the little guy.
I fucking can't compete with Apple, say I am a bank/store/club and my customers(not Apple ones) want a mobile app, how can I give the 50% of my customer my app without having to pay Apple , if I try to sell something or put a link to a page of mine for buying subscriptions or stuff Apple will demand a cut(I know they were forced to be less greedy lately).
1. Sales != market share but that's not relevant. Even a >50% share isn't a monopoly if there are multiple other competitors in the remaining 50%. And I don't think anyone is misrepresenting Apple's position. The word "Monopoly" has a meaning. Apple does not fit that meaning.
2. You can't give your customers an app without paying Apple if your customers are demanding it work for Apple products. That doesn't mean you can't compete. You can still only sell to Android users and other phone users but you have to do so with the understanding of what that means. You're still competing. That's like saying you can't compete with Windows when you only release your app for Linux. That's your choice. You're still competing against Windows.
I know Apple is very dear for many people but let's think different , say 49% of the radios in people homes and cars are made by Huawei and if I want my radio station to work on this radios I need to pay Huawei 30% of my profits and I can only have content approved by Huawei just in case is not respecting the correct values. It is ridiculous right to have a radio or TV device put artificial limits,
Your second point is again invalid, say Apple is blocking my website because I said that they are greedy, this is fine in your opinion because I can still show my site to PC and Android users and you can't even see yet the abuse that is happening, Apple should not decide that they don't like the politics on an app or book and not allow the user the freedom to install it, they can block it from the store sure but the user should have the freedom to use his brain and install what he wants, The same for say a group of developers or musicians that want to compete with Apple products , like the Apple Store, or Apple Music or whatever games they have, it is actually ilegal for Apple to abuse their market share in smartphones to give it's own products an advantage. (yeah actually the law does not say you must have 50% +1 market share)
1. Huawei, in your example, didn't create the radio station platform. We're not talking about publicly accessible platforms, we're talking about a app platform that Apple created, cultivated, and maintains 100%.
2. Again, this analogy has the same issue. Apple doesn't own the entire internet. If Apple started blocking websites, that would be wrong because those websites existed and continue to exist without Apple. The App Store does not have that same providence and was 100% created by Apple.
No one ever said that you have to have 50% + 1 market share so I don't know where you're getting that from. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Amazon, Google... all these companies own the marketplaces for their devices. This is not illegal and there is precedent protecting it.
No, you are trying to make it appear that it is physically impossible to run an application on Apple devices without using the store, This is FALSE, see the laptops , you can run applications without using the Apple store or their dev tools. So users should be allowed same fucking freedom on the phones as on the laptops, the only excuses I see are "most iOS users are retards and they will get scammed" or "Apple should have the right to be assholes and abuse their customers if the market allows it and don't dare try to question Apple, even when they make mistakes they are perfect"
>If users want the freedom to install whatever they want on their devices, they can go with Android.
Why should be this true? Why a law that forbids radio and TV makers to lock their device is good for society but a similar law for phones is less good? What is the benefit? The only benefit is more money for Apple so maybe you love Apple more then people but it makes no sense, sorry.
Again, radio and TV are public utilities. The public paid to create that infrastructure and the technology and resources necessary to support it. It should have a law that forbids people from any kind of limitation since citizens paid for all of that.
Apple is a private company whose shareholders decide what's best based on the fact that they created the infrastructure and technology of their platform and they are the ones spending money and resources to ensure its quality and reliability.
If you want to pass laws to solve this problem, create a National App Store platform and then require companies to allow access to it. Forcing Apple to change their own App Store, though, is wrong. How much I love Apple or how much I love people has nothing to do with it.
And not to put to fine a point on it but you can do whatever you want with your iPhone after you've bought it. You can take it apart, swap out components, repair it yourself, jailbreak it, or whatever you want and Apple can't do anything about it (and won't). You're talking about forcing a company to change its own operations for their platform just because you don't like it or agree with the restrictions they've chosen to place on it. I would be really curious to see if you'd be willing to have a private company force you to do something you don't want to do with your own property or self.
This is frankly a stupid comparison, I did not ask that Apple put my game, music or books in their store and promote it. I ask that the device can be used without limitations. There were laws that forbid radio devices to be "locked" and there were also laws for phones to also not allow locking them to a specific carrier (the exception was that if you were getting the phone with a discount with a 2 year contract after the 2 years you had the right to unlock your phone for free).
I would appreciate if you try a bit more to make the distinction between Apple Store market and just he hardware(the laptop or phone).
You're the one muddying the waters, here. You keep comparing device restrictions between iPhones and radios when they're completely different. One accesses a public good and the other a private platform.
Let me give you a different examples, bank ATM machines, guess what it is a private object, connected to a private bank, on private property and still that laws (in EU) forced this banks to make the ATMs interoperable and to stop the giant extra taxes when you used a card from bank A on an ATM from bank B.
So probably in your view this is evil, the people forced a private entity to not be a jerk and apply a big tax. Evil or not this is possible, a law can be made to limit the Google/Apple tax and the same law can be made to force side loading or block loot-boxes.
That's completely fine. The current situation already has precedent in courts considering that Sony, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, and many others have exclusive control of their App Stores. Claiming Apple is anti-competitive because of its platform would upend all of these platforms.
Well, the difference is that with Steam EA gets the choice whether they like the "extra marketing" for that price or not. If a customer wants to buy something from EA outside of Steam, EA is permitted to sell it to them without ripping up their Steam distribution channel - which is not the case for Epic/Apple.
Yes it is. Epic is allowed to sell to every other person that's not an iOS user without ripping up their iOS distribution channel too. They chose not to do that, though, and then shot themselves in the foot on top of it to try and stick it to Apple.
Epic could sell to accounts in every other channel without having to pay a cut. In-app purchasing is just too convenient - and as a result, too lucrative.
It is parasitic, but I think in the bigger scheme of things, Valve is a lesser evil than Epic, which is in itself a lesser evil than Apple. Valve is investing in its own capital as well as the infrastructure for the PC gaming industry at large (Vulkan and driver improvements), whereas Epic has no endgame but to gain market share using bottomless VC pockets. Apple, while a company with some merits, utilizes vertical integration that is overall harmful for user freedom, especially when it comes to the right-to-repair, and is only using its revenue to further remove themselves from the large tech ecosystem and build up the walls of its gated community with their own unique hardware/software.
You and I must have different definitions of parasitic. Apple is providing services to developers and, in exchange is receiving payment for that. Developers shouldn't be able to take advantage of the benefits of the platform without paying for it.
Apple provides a hardware thing, users pay for the objects,
Developers should pay for the IDEs or compilers if they want to use Apple tools and the user should have the freedom to decide what to put on his piece of hardware,
But sure, if I put my app on the store I should pay for hosting it, for the updates and reviews, I should pay if I want it to be promoted on the store but I should not be forced to say pay Apple a tax for shit like soem subscriptions or books I sell from my app, I should pay Apple for the store services they offer.
Also Sony and Microsoft should not be immune either IMO
>I should not be forced to say pay Apple a tax for shit like soem subscriptions or books I sell from my app
If you're selling them from within the app, you're making use of Apple's payment and subscription infrastructure and the customer base of iOS. Those things are not free.
That is the issue, Apple is abusing it's power but not letting you even put a shitty link to your website if on that website you were selling stuff.
I agree if you as a customer pay with Apple payment system Apple should charge you a fee, but you as a user should have the freedom to see a link to a product page.
Check all the rule changes Apple were forced to do, they reducing the tax and reducing the scope when to apply it, the Apple fans were sure that Apple was perfect before this changes and for some reason Apple changed it's perfection now and can it be more perfect??? Was the last change the last one, can't Apple be even more perfect then more perfect and offer the user the freedom that they do not deserve??
The changes in policy show that Apple was not in the right and it is not perfect and there is a large chance that the last changes were not enough and they need to slowly give up their control , but squeze as much money as possible because "this is the way"
>Apple is abusing it's power but not letting you even put a shitty link to your website if on that website you were selling stuff.
That's a load of horseshit. You can't walk in to a Target and post an advertisement saying that the Walmart down the street or "Mom and Pop's General Store" sell the same items for cheaper or that they have x, y, z. Apple owns their App Store. It functions just like a regular store and they're allowed to decide what they want to allow on their store and what they don't.
Your position on this is wrong because it's based on assumptions you're making that are inaccurate. This a private platform. They're not abusing their power simply by operating their store and not allowing others to advertise their own outside goods inside of it.
There is an infinite difference with a physical Store, Apple and Google combined control the market where your local store might control a small area (in my little village there are at least 3 stores so there is more competition then in mobile market)
>The problem is the choice is taken away from you though
All Apple has to do is compromise on the 30% number. They've taken it to the extreme and demanded 30% of everything, 30% of subscriptions, 30% of every dollar.
It's outrageous and developers who are perfectly capable of either self-hosting or finding a solution for cheaper than 30% OF ALL REVENUE deserve to keep the 25% of that revenue that is pure profit to Apple.
Apple created this situation for themselves and they will have to give up sooner or later.
Steam makes plenty of concessions for the 30% number and now allows basically pass-through games so that a much more wide variety of titles can appear there even if they aren't paying a full tax to the storefront for appearing.
I mean, could you imagine a world where Wal-Mart was the only store your Toyota car was allowed to drive to, and Wal-Mart charged their suppliers 30% of all revenue to appear on the shelves?
What is happening with the App Store monopoly is truly outrageous, it's an unimaginable amount. 30% is why Apple is going to lose here. If they were willing to be reasonable, it wouldn't get to this point.
