iOS in comparison is downright draconian.
Yes, console makers have monopoly stores on their platforms. Even if you include physical copies, because of the licensing platforms, it's still the same basic idea. (They're also criticized by some for these reasons.)
The difference is that those platforms are not using those quasi-monopolies as leverage to force developers to use their tools. Could they? Yes. But you can't use the capability someone has to do something to defend Apple actually doing the thing.
[0] - The down-voters seem only to disagree with you. That's not what a down-vote is for, and voting this way actively harms the discussion.
...
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
So it's not that bad, you can do most of your everyday work on whatever OS you prefer.
Also, if you think developing in Xamarin or Unity can be done off platform with some last minute debugging and ship... then you're in a reality many of us wish existed.
I get it, Apple takes a 30% hit and it is a lot of money. But managing your own payment platform and sales is going to consume 15% already, so I don't want to hear about how outrageous this is. No one accounts for what they are getting for their 30% when they whine about how Apple is being unfair.
Apple is a boutique brand that has a vast customer base of people who don't mind spending money. Want access to that? Pay! This is not a unique formula, look at an NFL franchise.
Also note that it isn't all game consoles, there are various open game consoles, though since they are not made by huge companies with huge marketing budgets they are not as popular (perhaps Atari's new Linux powered console[1] will change that, but we'll see). However their existence means that games consoles are not synonymous with locked down walled gardens.
I'm sure if the next Xbox had the ability to run Windows 10 it would sell like crazy.
Or even better if it was a true OS, like Windows 7.
An iPhone, by contrast, will be many people's primary or even they're only computer. What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display?
I see this issue as broader than just competition—I think it's analogous to free speech.
(And before someone comments about how this doesn't conflict with the 1st Amendment, you are obviously correct; but free speech is as much a societal value as a legal construct, and is not limited to the Bill of Rights as its sole champion.)
If all this competition that the article talked about was such a good thing, apps would be cheaper on Android, and I, as a consumer, would switch. Fact is, the fact that Tinder et al are now bypassing Google’s mechanisms isn’t a good thing to me at all. It’s more the reason to stay on iOS.
The article writer is pissed he can’t get access to me without paying Apple’s toll, but what he doesn’t understand is that I am like it like that.
However, I don't think that a link that says "Click here to start your Netflix subscription" threatens that experience in the slightest; it's only a threat to Apple's revenue model. (While there are legitimate concerns about fraud/phishing/etc, that can be reviewed on a content level by Apple, as they already do in other respects.)
There are perhaps arguments against allowing side-loading; even if the process is cumbersome for non-techies, there remains a "dancing bunnies" [0] problem that might lead to malware on Grandma's phone (or, just a very poor software experience).
But even there, I'm not convinced that there isn't a reasonable tradeoff. While the needs for macOS and iOS are clearly different, the former has a very reasonable default that allows unsigned executables, while discouraging them to non-technical users, and giving a great experience buying and installing software through the App Store. (Strictly speaking, one can pseudo-sideload on iOS via XCode if one has the source, but at the cost of $99!)
I think a more reasonable policy might be requiring all apps to be code-signed (so malware and pirated apps can be shut down), but allow side-loading with a great number of scary warnings. Most people will still prefer the App Store experience, and as with the Mac App Store, the increased audience will usually be worth the 30% cut (which, by the way, if faced with "competition" from side-loading, may be pressured down into a more reasonable 10-20% range.)
Whether it's Apple, Nintendo, or Amazon, any platform that makes itself a mandatory middle-man between third-party buyers and sellers is rent-seeking extraction at best, and a net economic loss at worst (preventing value-creating relationships from existing at all). In my opinion, smart and reasonable regulations of such marketplace platforms would be a win for both economic growth and personal freedom.
[0] https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-dancing-bunnies-problem/
Where, in the US, is the requirement that everyone has to let anyone say anything enshrined? AFAIK, it's not, and is (very) often confused with the Bill of Rights version.
One important distinction is that free expression is not limited to the "right to say anything"; it also includes the right to listen to the expression of others. See, for example, the rich history of librarians resisting turning over records of who reads what books, which could result in a chilling effect where people are scared to read controversial material.
this is literally every major OS right now.... Mac, iOS, Android, Chromium, Windows....
> I think it's analogous to free speech.
what? no it isn't. these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities.
No it's not! I can run whatever software I want on Windows, Mac, Android and Chromium.
> these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities.
I am not accusing Apple of literally breaking the first amendment. I do, however, think their actions have consequences for our society and democracy.
Imagine if side-loading books onto a Kindle was impossible, and Amazon implemented an App Store-style review process for everything sold on the Kindle store. Would you consider that a threat to free speech?
Well, consider what happened when someone made an iOS game about Apple factory workers in Foxconn: Apple killed it [1].
Now, it is absolutely Apple's prerogative to determine what is allowed on their storefront, just as any retailer can decide what to stock on its shelves. However, by completely blocking any form of side-loading, Apple is making decisions about what type of content their users are allowed to see on their devices. That's a problem if the iPhone is someone's primary computer, and perhaps their only computer.
[1] https://kotaku.com/there-was-an-iphone-game-about-foxconn-un...
Just as you can on Safari!
Web applications can't do peer to peer networking, period. Nor can they interact with arbitrary hardware devices you decide to connect.
Companies; S,C, LLC. They did not exist, and by request they were willed into 'personhood' at the signing of a government pen. They were not required to approve the incorporation request. So, I ask this:
Why do we not enforce incorporated entities to also abide by the Bill of Rights as being extensions of the government?
They certainly weren't born, and there's no corporate death penalty. So it tells me they're an extension of government, as they were willed into being with their explicit consent.
because they are extensions of the private citizens that own them
your extension is accomplished when government entities under the US Constitution are significant funders or owners of these entities
Barns & Noble should be able to decide what types of books to put on their selves. Hacker News's moderators should be able to make decisions about what types of content lead to intellectual curiosity. And while I strongly believe all software platforms should allow sideloading, I also think Apple's curated, "safe" App Store is a great (optional) service for consumers who want it.
If you're not, there's a lot of Android phones, varying from open to extremely open, for general purpose computing.
Console? When I ship a PS4 build, it is THE PS4 BUILD. It has optimizations designed to maximize the memory buses that ship with the PS4 and the PS4 only.
But why is that relevant to how one is a general purpose computer and the other isn’t?
And before you bring up an esoteric development scenario, I assure you that developers aren’t using their phone as their primary computer.
Look at the IP protection around John Deere equipment.
While none of this is especially good, it's hardly a unique problem.
App stores are vampiric parasites and need to be dismantled. Either that, or these companies need their phone monopolies taken away.
You can’t distribute a Switch, PS4, or Xbox One game without giving the respective companies a cut of your sale.
Windows and Mac are the only exceptions, but you won’t get far without publishing to a digital store unless you can afford to drum up a whole lot of name recognition all on your own (also costs money unless you hit the lottery like Mojang did).
Gaming companies fight to win over gamers and developers. Not so for Apple and Google with their walled fiefdoms.
If you release a game on disc. The retailer + distributer get at least a 50% cut.
There's absolutely no restriction on game development machines except that the provided tools (probably) only run on Windows.
Apple intentionally restrict developers to only use Apple hardware and software to keep the ecosystem contained.
And arguably, a big reason for this is trust. Users feel more comfortable spending money in iOS specifically because it’s a walled garden and Apple vouches for the trustworthiness of the developers in it.
It’s telling that stories about devs behaving badly within the App Store (like the weird VPNs and parental controls that are basically enterprise MDM tools) get way more traction than stories about this.
The sad difference is that we don't care much about 'A' rated game, but we do care about useless 30% surcharge and more trouble on how to pay.
If you do care about 'A' rated games, I will gladly push your campaign and not argue whether it's a legitimate concern or not.
> I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer.
I agree completely, which is why I wouldn't expect Apple to accept on the app store (the market) to let description or screenshot talk about how it can be cheaper somewhere else.
Outside of the app store though, on the apps themselves, they shouldn't have any control over what the app say over where you can or cannot buy something. They don't own the device, it's mine. they may own their app store, that's fine, they are hosting it, but they don't own the device.
> a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me
Same goes for me and I'm on Android. The difference is the liberty to make that choice.
App stores and retailers are different. There's almost no cost to list an app (for Apple, Google) and yet they charge a 30% fee. Apple, especially, is a text book anti competitive, monopoly in their terms and it's enforcement.
Also, the app store would be just as successful if not for their draconian rules, Mac is proof that ecosystems can thrive without Apple's stranglehold. The app store choke hold is all about the money
- Credit card processing fees
- Hosting the content (yes minimal but can't be ignored)
- Approval process (the people)
- "Editors" that create the curated lists every day
- Developer support hours (technically you get with the yearly subscription but I doubt that actually covers the cost of those hours).
- The engineers building the developer tools (Xcode, the developer portal, TestFlight, etc)
Around 1.5%. Probably even cheaper for the big fish.
> - Hosting the content (yes minimal but can't be ignored)
S3 charges $0.0007/GB and $0.00000004/request for downloads as their baseline. Assuming a typical app size of ~50MB, each download would cost $0.00003504. Updates would be even cheaper, since they are usually tiny delta packages.
> - Approval process (the people)
A problem that they imposed in the first place.
> - "Editors" that create the curated lists every day
See above.
> - Developer support hours (technically you get with the yearly subscription but I doubt that actually covers the cost of those hours).
Then charge the actual cost for support, or improve the documentation? It doesn't exactly seem fair to make the competent developers subsidize the people who bog down the support department. (Or, if it's actually common to use these, to use their monopoly to force devs to use a platform so awful that they actually need to call the support.)
> - The engineers building the developer tools (Xcode, the developer portal, TestFlight, etc)
Which are self-imposed problems and/or inferior to free third-party tools.
So, that 30% cost is really just the price of doing business in this ecosystem. It is entirely your choice as to whether or not you participate in this ecosystem.
That's wildly inaccurate. It's easily disprovable: Apple's costs aren't proportional to the pricing of software sold through it's stores. Does your refrigerator maker charge you as 30% premium on groceries stored in the fridge, or are there limitations on what groceries you can stock there?
The app store is wildly profitable, and Apple admits as much. While I have no objection to profits, we're all here discussing the issue because it's a tool used to unfairly thwart competition, impose monopolistic & unfair trade practices, which is why the EU and supreme Court, and possibly FTC are all involved in various complaints against Apple. If your fridge maker isn't allowed to regulate your groceries, Apple shouldn't be arbitrarily blocking and price gouging apps on their platform.
If Apple were like Safeway then you'd have to pay them a few hundred grand to even be in the store, AND you will pay the 30% markup, AND guarantee a certain level of marketing spend out of your pocket (a portion of which will go to vendors/services they specify), AND if you don't make certain sales numbers they simply delete your app.
The Mac software ecosystem isn’t exactly “thriving”. That’s most of the reason that Apple is trying to bring iOS developers to the Mac.
While I do think it's high for recurring revenue every retailer is in that 30% range or higher.
Can you be more specific? I know plenty of places to rent 'A' movie for example. I also know plenty of alternative to Steam on PC, yet none on iOS device.
If you talked about games on console that can't be 'A' rated. I would agree completely that it's wrong and I'm pretty sure that almost everybody would agree. We just don't care about not being to play 'A' game on console.
If you do care, believe me, I would gladly say that what you are doing is positive. I won't say, well what about X other place that doesn't allow something else.
My point is that all of these digital platforms are taking a percentage that is in that range. Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms. I'm not saying the percentage isn't high but Apple isn't an outlier when it comes to the fees.
What about Barnes & Nobles? What about your local library? The difference is competition/choice.
I'm not even arguing about the 30% on the shop or even the existence of fees. Fees makes sense if they add something. They are well in their rights and it's fine that they do it in the app store.
What I'm arguing about is forcing them to use that as payment gateway IN the app. That's not value added, VISA does it for 2.5% (and less) already, Paypal too. That means that they directly remove choice to gains from you.
Buy a magazine over Amazon and see if inside there's an offer to subscribe using others means. Go on Uber on Android and check if you are forced to use Google Wallet.
> Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms.
You are not calling out others, you didn't even named one in your comment. You are justifying their fees by the competition that does similar fees. You may want to change how you formulate your comment if your goal is really to call them out.
As you point out, they really don't make much in the way of profit on their software or services -- almost all their profit comes from selling the hardware.
So, 30% is just the cost of doing business in the ecosystem. If you don't like that, you don't have to participate in that ecosystem.
It is entirely your choice.
Unless you work in the finance department at Apple, you have no way of knowing this. And if you do, disclosing this is a fireable offense.
On the web you can trust someone like paypal for what thats worth instead of a million websites.
This problem is solved with Paypal.
Bed Bath and Beyond had done everything right to capture my purchase: They hosted the wedding registry, took care of the couple's address, and by not allowing me to select "I'm buying this somewhere else" kept me from leaving to where I could possibly get the item cheaper.
But BB&B requires Verified By Visa, and I require my credit card provider to not be stupid about security, so my card was declined. I turned right around and bought the item on Amazon.
I don’t use my debit card for online purchases at all however. If someone steals that and uses it, I’m out of pocket until the bank resolves it, which can take days.
With credit cards, and Amex especially, they’ll simply reverse the fraudulent transactions and overnight you a new card.
Someone skimmed my Amex when I was on a vacation in Japan, charged about ¥700k on it. One call to them, they froze the transactions and in roughly 16 hours I collected a new card in the hotel lobby.
But at least the worst is better than most everything else.
I am pretty sure game consoles have been doing this basically since their existence. None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example. (Considering the topic of the article, it should be obvious I am referring to "restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing" here)
Retail stores keep some amount of control over signage, I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer.
In reality Apple is continuing a trend that is normal for store fronts, digital or physical.
However, the "walled garden" of Apple is largely why I stick with iOS. I don't want to be forced to trust every company with my credit card information (a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me, with very few exception... like Amazon for obvious reasons).
Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut.